4 ms·
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 t
by 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 agoOne 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 agoApple'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?