3 ms·

Question 2: Did Apple act alone, or in consultation with AT&T, in deciding to reject the Google Voice application and related applications? If the latter, plea

by e1ven 17y ago

Question 2: Did Apple act alone, or in consultation with AT&T, in deciding to reject the Google Voice application and related applications? If the latter, please describe the communications between Apple and AT&T in connection with the decision to reject Google Voice. Are there any contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T that affected Apple’s decision in this matter? Answer 2: Apple is acting alone and has not consulted with AT&T about whether or not to approve the Google Voice application. No contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T have been a factor in Apple’s decision-making process in this matter. -- I guess that is about as straight an answer as we could have hoped for on the issue. Apple, not AT&T, made the call.

jf 17y ago
As much as I'd like to believe this, it just doesn't feel right. Why didn't Apple respond in this manner sooner? Why did it take a strongly worded letter from the FCC for them to do so?
- e1ven 17y ago
  One reason may be that AT&T and Google's answers are also now public, so Apple wanted to have it's best face forward. http://www.scribd.com/doc/18983512/ATT-Response-to-FCC-iPhone-Letter-082109-as-Filed http://www.scribd.com/doc/18983512/ATT-Response-to-FCC-iPhon... http://www.scribd.com/doc/18983640/Google-Response-to-FCC http://www.scribd.com/doc/18983640/Google-Response-to-FCC Personally, I suspect that Apple would prefer that AT&T take the blame for as much as possible. From the tone of the letter, it sounds like Apple tries to shift blame onto AT&T where they can- For instance, Apple was responsible for the initial SlingPlayer rejection. Apple's response says that they rejected the app because it violates AT&T's TOS, but doesn't say that AT&T requested the rejection. Viewed in the context of the Google Voice rejection, this leads me to believe that Apple is happy to be able to point to the TOS as the reason for the rejection, rather than having to decide if they want to allow an (indirect) competitor to their iTunes TV store.
- jsz0 17y ago
  Apple's original reason for rejecting the application was that it duplicated functionality. This is almost exactly the same statement with more direct answers to specific questions.
- jimbokun 17y ago
  "Why did it take a strongly worded letter from the FCC for them to do so?" Uh, because the FCC has the power and authority to make things very unpleasant for Apple if they didn't reply?
rksprst 17y ago
"No contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T have been a factor in Apple’s decision-making process in this matter." I wonder if that implies that there are contractual conditions and non-contractual understandings that exist, but were not a factor in the decision-making process in this case (but was a factor in other cases). Though I guess answer 3 answers that.
alain94040 17y ago
From AT&T's answer, you finally know why all those applications are a problem: AT&T and Apple discussed a proposed iPhone application from MobiTV and CBS that was designed to stream live video and audio from the NCAA men’s basketball tournament. AT&T and Apple discussed the likelihood that such an application could cause substantial network congestion and degradation of service for certain customers on AT&T’s 3G network, especially customers accessing cell sites located near colleges involved in the tournament.
tamersalama 17y ago
I admire the whole set of questions
- jhancock 17y ago
  The questions are good. The answers may be honest or not. Hard to say. It wasn't too long ago that Apple tried to cover up their problems with backdated stock options.
huhtenberg 17y ago
Really ? This beautifully straight answer does actually not cover the case of AT&T calling Apple and asking to not approve the GV: * It would've not been an act of "Apple consulting with AT&T" * It would've not been a contractual condition * It would've not been a non-contractual understanding It's all legal speak. Apple said what they had to say not to fan the flames.
- pbhjpbhj 17y ago
  If ATT called Apple and simply asked them to deny GV approval then that is certainly a "non-contractual understanding". There do not need to be reverse conditions AFAICT - if there are it's a contract.

by e1ven 17y ago

jf 17y ago

As much as I'd like to believe this, it just doesn't feel right. Why didn't Apple respond in this manner sooner? Why did it take a strongly worded letter from the FCC for them to do so?

e1ven 17y ago
One reason may be that AT&T and Google's answers are also now public, so Apple wanted to have it's best face forward. http://www.scribd.com/doc/18983512/ATT-Response-to-FCC-iPhone-Letter-082109-as-Filed http://www.scribd.com/doc/18983512/ATT-Response-to-FCC-iPhon... http://www.scribd.com/doc/18983640/Google-Response-to-FCC http://www.scribd.com/doc/18983640/Google-Response-to-FCC Personally, I suspect that Apple would prefer that AT&T take the blame for as much as possible. From the tone of the letter, it sounds like Apple tries to shift blame onto AT&T where they can- For instance, Apple was responsible for the initial SlingPlayer rejection. Apple's response says that they rejected the app because it violates AT&T's TOS, but doesn't say that AT&T requested the rejection. Viewed in the context of the Google Voice rejection, this leads me to believe that Apple is happy to be able to point to the TOS as the reason for the rejection, rather than having to decide if they want to allow an (indirect) competitor to their iTunes TV store.
jsz0 17y ago
Apple's original reason for rejecting the application was that it duplicated functionality. This is almost exactly the same statement with more direct answers to specific questions.
jimbokun 17y ago
"Why did it take a strongly worded letter from the FCC for them to do so?" Uh, because the FCC has the power and authority to make things very unpleasant for Apple if they didn't reply?

rksprst 17y ago

"No contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T have been a factor in Apple’s decision-making process in this matter." I wonder if that implies that there are contractual conditions and non-contractual understandings that exist, but were not a factor in the decision-making process in this case (but was a factor in other cases). Though I guess answer 3 answers that.

alain94040 17y ago

From AT&T's answer, you finally know why all those applications are a problem: AT&T and Apple discussed a proposed iPhone application from MobiTV and CBS that was designed to stream live video and audio from the NCAA men’s basketball tournament. AT&T and Apple discussed the likelihood that such an application could cause substantial network congestion and degradation of service for certain customers on AT&T’s 3G network, especially customers accessing cell sites located near colleges involved in the tournament.

tamersalama 17y ago

I admire the whole set of questions

jhancock 17y ago
The questions are good. The answers may be honest or not. Hard to say. It wasn't too long ago that Apple tried to cover up their problems with backdated stock options.

huhtenberg 17y ago

Really ? This beautifully straight answer does actually not cover the case of AT&T calling Apple and asking to not approve the GV: * It would've not been an act of "Apple consulting with AT&T" * It would've not been a contractual condition * It would've not been a non-contractual understanding It's all legal speak. Apple said what they had to say not to fan the flames.

pbhjpbhj 17y ago
If ATT called Apple and simply asked them to deny GV approval then that is certainly a "non-contractual understanding". There do not need to be reverse conditions AFAICT - if there are it's a contract.