45 ms·

What took them so long?

by medianama 17y ago

antipax 17y ago
Guess the GV thing was the tip of the iceberg for him.
- wglb 17y ago
  Perhaps you mean the straw that broke the camel's back?
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - jerf 17y ago
    I like to refer to things like this as "the brick that broke the camel's back". "Straws" that break the camel's back should be reserved for an insignificant annoyance that sets you off after a long period of building up grievances; calling it the brick implies the long buildup of grievances but also that this one is pretty significant. (And it tends to get a chuckle, which is a plus in my book.) I think this is a pretty significant finger in the eye from Apple.
    - dhimes 17y ago
      hey, hey, one metaphor at a time!
    - Eliezer 17y ago
      And if it's really large, "the anvil that broke the camel's back".
      - JacobAldridge 17y ago
        "Man, I'm guessing that was the nuclear warhead that broke the camel's back." "And destroyed most of his neighborhood."
        Eliezer 17y ago
        There are more ways to skin a cat than nuking the site from orbit, but it's the only way to be sure.
      - jerf 17y ago
        I hate to reply with fluff, but I'm pretty sure I've actually said that too. Apparently there's a canonical scale of heaviness in our culture. I definitely have never nuked a poor camel, though (per JacobAldridge's reply), though I'll see what I can do about correcting that oversight. Also perhaps I'll drop a Library of Congress on an unsuspecting camel.
  - tlrobinson 17y ago
    He's not the brightest tool in the shed.
- wheels 17y ago
  I think there's probably more to the whole Google Voice thing than is, uhh, on the surface. ;-) I suspect even if Google knew that the application would be rejected that they still would have developed it to start a PR coup to knock the iPhone off of its pedestal. I don't think Google really cares all that much about Google Voice in isolation -- it's of limited strategic value by itself. But if you see it as part of their overall mobile strategy of commoditizing the smart phone market (which Google Voice also helps), and if you look at how important it is for Apple that that not happen, I think the conflict of interest has more teeth.
  - siculars 17y ago
    i would say it is of maximal strategic value. knowing who calls who is the ultimate social graph. note the analytics news out of ibm re snazzy.
    - pj 17y ago
      and what better way to target ads to them than to know exactly what they are talking about?
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      > knowing who calls who is the ultimate social graph. Reading HN today has paid off I see. That's a brilliant insight.
      - litewulf 17y ago
        "who I call" is a massive subset of my social graph. Most of the things I do are arranged by email/IM. We agree to go to someone's house at a particular time, and then we do so. I'd only call if I managed to get lost.
        thorax 17y ago
        You mean arranged via gmail/gtalk?
- hellweaver666 17y ago
  To be honest, A lot of people are blaming Apple for the whole Google Voice thing - I'm pretty sure that Apple were pressured to remove it by AT&T. Skype only got away with being published because it only works for calls over wifi. As for all the other GV apps, I'm pretty sure they were only removed because AT&T became aware of them as a side effect of the official app being published.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    AT&T claims high and low that they were not involved. Either that's the truth or shredders are running, the FCC has asked that question explicitly and that was AT&Ts answer: "AT&T does not manage or approve applications for the App Store" Which pretty much leaves Apple to talk their way out of this on their own. Nice to have partners.
  - yumraj 17y ago
    Let me ask a simple Qs: Why would AT&T (if it was involved) ask to only remove the GV app on iPhone? Wouldn't Blackberry and Android have lost their GV apps too? Blackberry and Androind users can still user GV apps, and AT&T has denied any involvement in this fiasco, leads me to believe it was all Apple's doing.
mattmaroon 17y ago
Well, it's a relationship that is certainly mutually beneficial in 1,000 ways. Public outcry is undoubtedly the only reason they're doing it.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  Could be. Possibly there is some real problem with being on the board of directors of a company that is now directly in competition with the company that you are CEO of. I can't imagine Schmidt was very happy when Apple turned down the google voice application, but at the same time I don't think he was surprised. Also, this could be the prelude to Google suing Apple over this.
  - mattmaroon 17y ago
    Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. There's certainly moral problems with being on a competitor's board, but it's definitely advantageous for business purposes for as long as you can get away with it.

What took them so long?

antipax 17y ago

Guess the GV thing was the tip of the iceberg for him.

wglb 17y ago
Perhaps you mean the straw that broke the camel's back?
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- jerf 17y ago
  I like to refer to things like this as "the brick that broke the camel's back". "Straws" that break the camel's back should be reserved for an insignificant annoyance that sets you off after a long period of building up grievances; calling it the brick implies the long buildup of grievances but also that this one is pretty significant. (And it tends to get a chuckle, which is a plus in my book.) I think this is a pretty significant finger in the eye from Apple.
  - dhimes 17y ago
    hey, hey, one metaphor at a time!
  - Eliezer 17y ago
    And if it's really large, "the anvil that broke the camel's back".
    - JacobAldridge 17y ago
      "Man, I'm guessing that was the nuclear warhead that broke the camel's back." "And destroyed most of his neighborhood."
      - Eliezer 17y ago
        There are more ways to skin a cat than nuking the site from orbit, but it's the only way to be sure.
    - jerf 17y ago
      I hate to reply with fluff, but I'm pretty sure I've actually said that too. Apparently there's a canonical scale of heaviness in our culture. I definitely have never nuked a poor camel, though (per JacobAldridge's reply), though I'll see what I can do about correcting that oversight. Also perhaps I'll drop a Library of Congress on an unsuspecting camel.
- tlrobinson 17y ago
  He's not the brightest tool in the shed.
wheels 17y ago
I think there's probably more to the whole Google Voice thing than is, uhh, on the surface. ;-) I suspect even if Google knew that the application would be rejected that they still would have developed it to start a PR coup to knock the iPhone off of its pedestal. I don't think Google really cares all that much about Google Voice in isolation -- it's of limited strategic value by itself. But if you see it as part of their overall mobile strategy of commoditizing the smart phone market (which Google Voice also helps), and if you look at how important it is for Apple that that not happen, I think the conflict of interest has more teeth.
- siculars 17y ago
  i would say it is of maximal strategic value. knowing who calls who is the ultimate social graph. note the analytics news out of ibm re snazzy.
  - pj 17y ago
    and what better way to target ads to them than to know exactly what they are talking about?
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    > knowing who calls who is the ultimate social graph. Reading HN today has paid off I see. That's a brilliant insight.
    - litewulf 17y ago
      "who I call" is a massive subset of my social graph. Most of the things I do are arranged by email/IM. We agree to go to someone's house at a particular time, and then we do so. I'd only call if I managed to get lost.
      - thorax 17y ago
        You mean arranged via gmail/gtalk?
hellweaver666 17y ago
To be honest, A lot of people are blaming Apple for the whole Google Voice thing - I'm pretty sure that Apple were pressured to remove it by AT&T. Skype only got away with being published because it only works for calls over wifi. As for all the other GV apps, I'm pretty sure they were only removed because AT&T became aware of them as a side effect of the official app being published.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  AT&T claims high and low that they were not involved. Either that's the truth or shredders are running, the FCC has asked that question explicitly and that was AT&Ts answer: "AT&T does not manage or approve applications for the App Store" Which pretty much leaves Apple to talk their way out of this on their own. Nice to have partners.
- yumraj 17y ago
  Let me ask a simple Qs: Why would AT&T (if it was involved) ask to only remove the GV app on iPhone? Wouldn't Blackberry and Android have lost their GV apps too? Blackberry and Androind users can still user GV apps, and AT&T has denied any involvement in this fiasco, leads me to believe it was all Apple's doing.

mattmaroon 17y ago

Well, it's a relationship that is certainly mutually beneficial in 1,000 ways. Public outcry is undoubtedly the only reason they're doing it.

jacquesm 17y ago
Could be. Possibly there is some real problem with being on the board of directors of a company that is now directly in competition with the company that you are CEO of. I can't imagine Schmidt was very happy when Apple turned down the google voice application, but at the same time I don't think he was surprised. Also, this could be the prelude to Google suing Apple over this.
- mattmaroon 17y ago
  Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. There's certainly moral problems with being on a competitor's board, but it's definitely advantageous for business purposes for as long as you can get away with it.