6 ms·

Daring Fireball's take on Apple's FCC response

53 points by natemartin 17y ago

ryanwaggoner 17y ago
I like where he points out that a source gave him info that was apparently bullshit and he says that 'Any future information from this source will be noted accordingly.'
- natemartin 17y ago
  I agree, this sort of accountability is one of the reasons that I enjoy following Gruber's writing, and think that the "fanboy" label given to him by some detractors is not deserved.
  - boucher 17y ago
    Gruber makes many good choices, this being one of them. But his writing is overwhelmingly pro-Apple. You can call it being a fanboy or not, it's up to you. Separately, I'd probably be as inclined to believe the source as I would Apple's public response.
    - pyre 17y ago
      Well, someone did make a comment under the other post that Apple answer didn't preclude the possibility that AT&T called up Apple and said, "Don't approve the Google Voice App." http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=778807 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=778807
    - raganwald 17y ago
      > But his writing is overwhelmingly pro-Apple. ... > I'd probably be as inclined to believe the source as I would Apple's public response. In turn, I say this: You are given two statements: One is a written and formal statement from Apple to the FCC. It's on record. If information comes to light in the future that contradicts this statement all h*ll will break loose for the company. The other is from Gruber claiming that some anonymous person claimed something to the contrary of Apple's statement. Given the two, you are inclined to believe someone who Gruber claims claims something. Where do you think you fit on a continuum from pro-Apple to neutral to anti-Apple?
      - pyre 17y ago
        He could just be anti-corporation/anti-'the man'
        raganwald 17y ago
        Ah, the general case. I can go along with this, I lean that way by nature as well. That being said, I recognize a flaw in my argument: I'm presenting a false dichotomy. In a case like this it's also quite acceptable to disbelieve Apple and the "little birdie."
        raganwald 17y ago
        Hindsight is 20/20: http://daringfireball.net/2009/08/google_voice_story_wrong http://daringfireball.net/2009/08/google_voice_story_wrong
      - deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
    - demallien 17y ago
      No, I don't think that you can say that Gruber is pro-Apple. It's more accurate to say that he is pro Apple products. Apple the company cops a fair bit of criticism from him, including on subjects such as the App Store, DRM, pricing etc, but Gruber explains in detail exactly why he is so enamoured by they products.
jhancock 17y ago
good overview. Hopefully, the FCC will decide that the iPhone belongs to the user once its purchased and not Apple. If the user decides to change the user experience or even brick their device, that's their choice.
- ubernostrum 17y ago
  It already is the user's choice. What you seem to want is for it to become Apple's responsibility to provide support for anything a user wants to do, which is another thing entirely.
  - raganwald 17y ago
    Agreed. I don't recall signing something saying I can't open up my iPhone and install Linux on it.
    - jhancock 17y ago
      There is outstanding ambiguity in DMCA and related laws which are used to great effect by companies like Apple. Is it illegal to hack your iPhone? I think not, but one reason I believe Apple has not sued over this yet is they get benefit from not having a clear ruling on the issue.
      - GHFigs 17y ago
        What ambiguity? It isn't illegal to hack your phone. It is illegal to modify and distribute someone else's copyrighted software to do so, though, and that is the only thing that Apple has taken any legal action against.
        eli 17y ago
        Dead wrong. No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent DRM with very few exceptions. It doesn't matter if it's for your own personal use. Doesn't even matter if you actually pirate any software. Simply breaking the locks is illegal. In fact, it makes it illegal to simply create or traffic tools that could be used to circumvent DRM (i.e. modchips, but that could describe a lot of tools)
dcurtis 17y ago
"Based on Apple’s response, it seems my “devil’s advocate” hunch in my initial piece on this was pretty close to the mark: that it’s about Apple’s competitive relationship with Google. Put another way, Apple does not want to make it easy or seamless for iPhone users to use Google’s phone service." I usually like Gruber's writing, but this statement makes a huge jump that really has no basis. Apple spends many paragraphs of its letter explaining that they denied the app because it alters the user experience. I believe what they explained is a more likely cause than some conspiracy by Apple to upset Google's dominance of the phone service.
- pyre 17y ago
  But not really. The way that they describe it is misleading -- tending to lead the user to believe that Google's app was replacing parts of the UI. This is how the 'user experience' has changed with Google Voice: * People call your 'google voice' number rather than you cellphone's phone number * Calls to your google voice number are forwarded to your cellphone * Voicemails left at your Google Voice number are stored in your Google Voice account (rather than on your AT&T voicemail at your cellphone's number) The problem with Apple complaining about the 'changed user experience' is that people signing up for Google Voice and getting the Google Voice app are making a conscious choice to modify their user experience in such a way. It's not like joe-sixpack stumbles blindly into GoogleVoice by accidentally downloading the app from the AppStore.
  - brisance 17y ago
    And then you have people who sued McDonalds successfully for not placing a warning label on a hot cup of coffee
    - pyre 17y ago
      I've yet to see someone sue a cellphone company because the phone's 'user experience' confused them, causing them to lose an important call...
  - eli 17y ago
    Well also outgoing calls can (optionally) be routed through Google Voice. On my G1 with Google Voice, I have it set to ask me for each number I dial whether I want to use T-Mobile or Google Voice for the call. I think it is fair to say that it alters the user experience of one of the core features (i.e. dialing a number). I just don't think that should be grounds for rejecting an app.
ajg1977 17y ago
I'm curious why none of the sites publishing Apple's response have called out the obvious bullshit in their statement. "alters the iPhone’s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone’s core mobile telephone functionality" "The Google Voice application replaces Apple’s Visual Voicemail [snip]... disabling Apple’s Visual Voicemail. Similarly, SMS text messages are managed through the Google hub, replacing the iPhone’s text messaging feature" Google Voice does NOT replace or disable anything on the iPhone, it simply offers users the choice of an alternative service. Choice is good. For my money, the reason Apple are preventing apps that would challenge AT&T or potentially strain their network is to ensure the iPhone remains an attractive prospect for teleco's for when AT&T's current deal expires.
jsz0 17y ago
Is Apple developing a competitor to Google Voice? I'm thinking of it from the perspective of Apple looking ahead towards carrier in-exclusistivity and seeing some obvious benefit to owning the customer and making the carrier irrelevant. Apple's claim of duplicate functionality would make a lot more sense in this context.
- wvenable 17y ago
  I don't think Apple is developing a competitor to Google Voice -- which is probably part of the problem. If they did build a competitor, it really wouldn't matter. Apple could do it better and more seamlessly. However, what's really happening is that Apple is seeing the writing on the wall. A lot of the core functionality of the phone, like Maps and search, are already provided by Google. Once you add in Google Voice with call management, voicemail, and SMS then suddenly it's not really Apple's phone anymore -- it's Google's.
- jhancock 17y ago
  Perhaps they are, perhaps its closer to what they claim. Hard to say. But that part should not matter much. I expect the FCC to protect the consumer in this case. I expect limits on the stranglehold a company (Apple or ATT) can have on the consumer that purchases product or service from a device vendor or carrier. Neutrality and independence enable competition. I want an FCC that embraces these concepts as it should be better for the entire economy, not just a few companies.
jvdh 17y ago
That’s a lot of apps. 8,500 per week with 40 reviewers works out to 212 apps per reviewer per week — about 40 per day. It's even worse than that, quoting the Apple text: There are more than 40 full-time trained reviewers, and at least two different reviewers study each application so that the review process is applied uniformly. So yes, more than 40 per day for a first review. On top of that they have to do at least another 40 for a second review. That's just plain insane.
- RyanMcGreal 17y ago
  It certainly helps to explain the seeming arbitrariness of some decisions. In fact, I'm inclined to think that the reviewers must be a heroic bunch not to screw up more than they do!
- mrshoe 17y ago
  Plain insane, indeed. I have no idea how they even pull that off. I feel sorry for their families. I really hope Apple hires and trains about another 200 of these reviewers.
  - Estragon 17y ago
    I have no idea how they even pull that off. It's easy, if you're happy to have the kind of capricious review decisions which have been getting Apple into so much trouble.
mattmaroon 17y ago
"That’s a lot of apps. 8,500 per week with 40 reviewers works out to 212 apps per reviewer per week — about 40 per day." Plus each app is allegedly reviewed by at least 2 people, so make that 80 per day, or 10 per hour. How thoroughly can you review an app in 6 minutes?

53 points by natemartin 17y ago

I like where he points out that a source gave him info that was apparently bullshit and he says that 'Any future information from this source will be noted accordingly.'

natemartin 17y ago
I agree, this sort of accountability is one of the reasons that I enjoy following Gruber's writing, and think that the "fanboy" label given to him by some detractors is not deserved.
- boucher 17y ago
  Gruber makes many good choices, this being one of them. But his writing is overwhelmingly pro-Apple. You can call it being a fanboy or not, it's up to you. Separately, I'd probably be as inclined to believe the source as I would Apple's public response.
  - pyre 17y ago
    Well, someone did make a comment under the other post that Apple answer didn't preclude the possibility that AT&T called up Apple and said, "Don't approve the Google Voice App." http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=778807 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=778807
  - raganwald 17y ago
    > But his writing is overwhelmingly pro-Apple. ... > I'd probably be as inclined to believe the source as I would Apple's public response. In turn, I say this: You are given two statements: One is a written and formal statement from Apple to the FCC. It's on record. If information comes to light in the future that contradicts this statement all h*ll will break loose for the company. The other is from Gruber claiming that some anonymous person claimed something to the contrary of Apple's statement. Given the two, you are inclined to believe someone who Gruber claims claims something. Where do you think you fit on a continuum from pro-Apple to neutral to anti-Apple?
    - pyre 17y ago
      He could just be anti-corporation/anti-'the man'
      - raganwald 17y ago
        Ah, the general case. I can go along with this, I lean that way by nature as well. That being said, I recognize a flaw in my argument: I'm presenting a false dichotomy. In a case like this it's also quite acceptable to disbelieve Apple and the "little birdie."
        raganwald 17y ago
        Hindsight is 20/20: http://daringfireball.net/2009/08/google_voice_story_wrong http://daringfireball.net/2009/08/google_voice_story_wrong
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
  - demallien 17y ago
    No, I don't think that you can say that Gruber is pro-Apple. It's more accurate to say that he is pro Apple products. Apple the company cops a fair bit of criticism from him, including on subjects such as the App Store, DRM, pricing etc, but Gruber explains in detail exactly why he is so enamoured by they products.

jhancock 17y ago

good overview. Hopefully, the FCC will decide that the iPhone belongs to the user once its purchased and not Apple. If the user decides to change the user experience or even brick their device, that's their choice.

ubernostrum 17y ago
It already is the user's choice. What you seem to want is for it to become Apple's responsibility to provide support for anything a user wants to do, which is another thing entirely.
- raganwald 17y ago
  Agreed. I don't recall signing something saying I can't open up my iPhone and install Linux on it.
  - jhancock 17y ago
    There is outstanding ambiguity in DMCA and related laws which are used to great effect by companies like Apple. Is it illegal to hack your iPhone? I think not, but one reason I believe Apple has not sued over this yet is they get benefit from not having a clear ruling on the issue.
    - GHFigs 17y ago
      What ambiguity? It isn't illegal to hack your phone. It is illegal to modify and distribute someone else's copyrighted software to do so, though, and that is the only thing that Apple has taken any legal action against.
      - eli 17y ago
        Dead wrong. No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent DRM with very few exceptions. It doesn't matter if it's for your own personal use. Doesn't even matter if you actually pirate any software. Simply breaking the locks is illegal. In fact, it makes it illegal to simply create or traffic tools that could be used to circumvent DRM (i.e. modchips, but that could describe a lot of tools)

dcurtis 17y ago

"Based on Apple’s response, it seems my “devil’s advocate” hunch in my initial piece on this was pretty close to the mark: that it’s about Apple’s competitive relationship with Google. Put another way, Apple does not want to make it easy or seamless for iPhone users to use Google’s phone service." I usually like Gruber's writing, but this statement makes a huge jump that really has no basis. Apple spends many paragraphs of its letter explaining that they denied the app because it alters the user experience. I believe what they explained is a more likely cause than some conspiracy by Apple to upset Google's dominance of the phone service.

pyre 17y ago
But not really. The way that they describe it is misleading -- tending to lead the user to believe that Google's app was replacing parts of the UI. This is how the 'user experience' has changed with Google Voice: * People call your 'google voice' number rather than you cellphone's phone number * Calls to your google voice number are forwarded to your cellphone * Voicemails left at your Google Voice number are stored in your Google Voice account (rather than on your AT&T voicemail at your cellphone's number) The problem with Apple complaining about the 'changed user experience' is that people signing up for Google Voice and getting the Google Voice app are making a conscious choice to modify their user experience in such a way. It's not like joe-sixpack stumbles blindly into GoogleVoice by accidentally downloading the app from the AppStore.
- brisance 17y ago
  And then you have people who sued McDonalds successfully for not placing a warning label on a hot cup of coffee
  - pyre 17y ago
    I've yet to see someone sue a cellphone company because the phone's 'user experience' confused them, causing them to lose an important call...
- eli 17y ago
  Well also outgoing calls can (optionally) be routed through Google Voice. On my G1 with Google Voice, I have it set to ask me for each number I dial whether I want to use T-Mobile or Google Voice for the call. I think it is fair to say that it alters the user experience of one of the core features (i.e. dialing a number). I just don't think that should be grounds for rejecting an app.

ajg1977 17y ago

I'm curious why none of the sites publishing Apple's response have called out the obvious bullshit in their statement. "alters the iPhone’s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone’s core mobile telephone functionality" "The Google Voice application replaces Apple’s Visual Voicemail [snip]... disabling Apple’s Visual Voicemail. Similarly, SMS text messages are managed through the Google hub, replacing the iPhone’s text messaging feature" Google Voice does NOT replace or disable anything on the iPhone, it simply offers users the choice of an alternative service. Choice is good. For my money, the reason Apple are preventing apps that would challenge AT&T or potentially strain their network is to ensure the iPhone remains an attractive prospect for teleco's for when AT&T's current deal expires.

jsz0 17y ago

Is Apple developing a competitor to Google Voice? I'm thinking of it from the perspective of Apple looking ahead towards carrier in-exclusistivity and seeing some obvious benefit to owning the customer and making the carrier irrelevant. Apple's claim of duplicate functionality would make a lot more sense in this context.

wvenable 17y ago
I don't think Apple is developing a competitor to Google Voice -- which is probably part of the problem. If they did build a competitor, it really wouldn't matter. Apple could do it better and more seamlessly. However, what's really happening is that Apple is seeing the writing on the wall. A lot of the core functionality of the phone, like Maps and search, are already provided by Google. Once you add in Google Voice with call management, voicemail, and SMS then suddenly it's not really Apple's phone anymore -- it's Google's.
jhancock 17y ago
Perhaps they are, perhaps its closer to what they claim. Hard to say. But that part should not matter much. I expect the FCC to protect the consumer in this case. I expect limits on the stranglehold a company (Apple or ATT) can have on the consumer that purchases product or service from a device vendor or carrier. Neutrality and independence enable competition. I want an FCC that embraces these concepts as it should be better for the entire economy, not just a few companies.

jvdh 17y ago

That’s a lot of apps. 8,500 per week with 40 reviewers works out to 212 apps per reviewer per week — about 40 per day. It's even worse than that, quoting the Apple text: There are more than 40 full-time trained reviewers, and at least two different reviewers study each application so that the review process is applied uniformly. So yes, more than 40 per day for a first review. On top of that they have to do at least another 40 for a second review. That's just plain insane.

RyanMcGreal 17y ago
It certainly helps to explain the seeming arbitrariness of some decisions. In fact, I'm inclined to think that the reviewers must be a heroic bunch not to screw up more than they do!
mrshoe 17y ago
Plain insane, indeed. I have no idea how they even pull that off. I feel sorry for their families. I really hope Apple hires and trains about another 200 of these reviewers.
- Estragon 17y ago
  I have no idea how they even pull that off. It's easy, if you're happy to have the kind of capricious review decisions which have been getting Apple into so much trouble.

mattmaroon 17y ago

"That’s a lot of apps. 8,500 per week with 40 reviewers works out to 212 apps per reviewer per week — about 40 per day." Plus each app is allegedly reviewed by at least 2 people, so make that 80 per day, or 10 per hour. How thoroughly can you review an app in 6 minutes?