5 ms·

Google Releases A Nuke. Apple Won’t Win This Fight.

72 points by vaksel 17y ago

MicahWedemeyer 17y ago
Am I missing something, or are screenshots impossible to fake now? I make fake screens all the time for fun.
dfranke 17y ago
We’re offering a free TechCrunch tshirt to any Google employee that forwards that screenshot to us. No questions asked. Anyone left on HN who still wants to stand up for Arrington's reputation as a journalist?
- logic 17y ago
  I expected the TechCrunch readership to not get a little jab of humor, but here too?
  - dfranke 17y ago
    It isn't funny. Arrington seems to think it is, but apparently all he's laughing at is his own lack of ethics rather than at any intended jest: i mean, sure, we’d take the docs and deliver the tshirt. but we do have one or two other ways of getting information.
- mullr 17y ago
  I find that a little funny. By wearing the free t-shirt, wouldn't everybody know what it's you that leaked said screenshot? Unless everybody at google regularly wears techcrunch clothing, which probably isn't likely. He should probably offer something which doesn't implicitly identify his source.
  - idm 17y ago
    I hope the shirt says, "I leaked evidence in my employer's multi-million-dollar lawsuit and all I got was this lousy t-shirt"
    - GHFigs 17y ago
      What lawsuit?
- ksvs 17y ago
  There are few reporters who wouldn't accept leaked documents. Some of the most famous news stories were based on leaks.
  - dfranke 17y ago
    There are hopefully considerably fewer offering explicit quid pro quos for said documents.
    - mikedouglas 17y ago
      Putting aside that we're talking about a shirt, what is unethical about buying leaked information, as long as it is legitimate news?
      - dfranke 17y ago
        It's not legitimate news. It's confidential correspondence. Arrington is seeking to bribe a Google employee to betray his employer by breaching his NDA. If the document were evidence of wrongdoing on Google's part, it would be a different matter -- the employee would be a whistleblower and his betrayal would be laudable. But that's not what we're talking about. Google is the victim of the alleged wrongdoing. If the information gets leaked, they're victimized even further by being deprived of a bargaining chip with Apple.
        mikedouglas 17y ago
        It's not legitimate news. Apple lied in an official FCC inquiry. That's news. Arrington is seeking to bribe a Google employee to betray his employer by breaching his NDA. The vast majority of news leaks throughout history have been based on ulterior motives; whether they are politically or financially-based, seems inconsequential. TechCrunch isn't a party to that NDA, so they should only consider the public interest of the story. If the information gets leaked, they're victimized even further by being deprived of a bargaining chip with Apple. What bargaining chip? The ability to collude to scuttle a government investigation? If the FCC asks for the letter, Google has to give it up anyways.
- erlanger 17y ago
  I don't see a problem with this.
  - tlrobinson 17y ago
    The only problem I see is it will be trivial to find the culprit, just look for the Googler wearing a TC shirt.
    - euccastro 17y ago
      He'd wear it inside out.
- anonjon 17y ago
  "I posted Google's last bargaining chip on Tech Crunch and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt." At least do what the other mediocre tabloids do and expect to pay a bounty for Bat Boy pictures.
- idm 17y ago
  I'm in the "t-shirt was a joke" camp, but this does cause me to wonder: is this alleged screenshot also a joke? I mean, in the context of the t-shirt thing, just how credible can Arrington's screenshot claim be, anyway?
  - bmelton 17y ago
    What strikes me as worrisome is that, at least by the tone of the article, there is no possible doubt in Arrington's mind that the screenshot exists, and that it is EXACTLY what was claimed to him, and he hasn't even seen it. I'm sure it's a somewhat thin argument, but I personally would think they'd start reserving their over-committal in the wake of the Facebook-picture-fax thing. I mean, they bought that hook, line and sinker, and that was a hoax they at least SAW.
    - mikedouglas 17y ago
      What strikes me as worrisome is that, at least by the tone of the article, there is no possible doubt in Arrington's mind that the screenshot exists, and that it is EXACTLY what was claimed to him, and he hasn't even seen it. This is a far better critique of TechCrunch than the "quid pro quo" angle.
      - dfranke 17y ago
        Yes, it is indeed a better critique. That should have occurred to me.
- pjvandehaar 17y ago
  This is disproved by the fact that at least 10 perfectly photoshopped screenshots had to have been submitted in the first hour, and have not been posted.
- jkincaid 17y ago
  It's a joke. Up to you whether you think it's funny or not, but as grounds to question his credibility? Lighten up.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
- zaidf 17y ago
  I once passed on a story to TC that had one upvote on HN at the time. It went on to become a huge sensation online and in print worldwide. I won't disclose it but basically the company threatened to sue all involved in spreading it. Afraid, I wrote to Arrington and he assured me he'd rather goto jail than out a source. Of course I never seriously thought the company had a case(especially against me). I just took a public link and fwded it to someone who made it big. Very different from leaking.
  - Nwallins 17y ago
    > I once passed on a story to TC that had one upvote on HN The meaning of this is completely changed if you parse it like: I once passed on a story...
- josefresco 17y ago
  Anyone HN left with a sense of humor? dranke apparently lost his.
jongraehl 17y ago
Screenshots are evidence because you'd really have to be lame to spend the effort on a perfect forgery? Is it that they do feel shame and won't falsely claim forgery on top of what they're already caught at?
gojomo 17y ago
Anyone have a copy of any bona-fide Apple App Store rejection notice? It's possible both sides are playing semantic games. A "we can't include this app at this time without tweaks" could be seen as a 'rejection' or merely a 'request for info/changes' depending on your perspective. I wouldn't put it past Apple to have carefully worded all 'rejections' and 'approvals' so that there is always wiggle room in both directions.
- drewcrawford 17y ago
  False. The iTunes Connect interface displays a red stoplight and a "Rejected" indication when an app has been rejected. Can't be clearer than that. Now whether or not they showed this image to Google I haven't the foggiest idea, but that's the way it's always happened to me. Behold: http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/59605/imgboards/Screen%20shot%202009-09-18%20at%209.37.09%20PM.png http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/59605/imgboards/Screen%20shot%202... As for e-mail rejection notices, they can be a little weasley. Here's the operative sentence in a rejection I got from Apple: > We've reviewed [app name] and determined that we cannot post this version of your iPhone application to the App Store because [reason].
  - gojomo 17y ago
    Thanks for the details! Though, I can see Apple's wiggle-room still. The image talks about rejecting a 'binary'. The boilerplate text, rejecting a 'version'. So picturing myself seated on Apple's (self-interested, self-serving) mental furniture, they may interpret things as: "We've rejected a version, and rejected a binary, but the app itself is still (and perpetually!) eligible for further consideration."
    - drewcrawford 17y ago
      Now we're playing semantics. The problem with redefining "rejecting an app" is that the phrase already has a perfectly good meaning: "dismiss as inadequate, inappropriate, or not to one's taste." Rejecting doesn't (have to) imply permanence; I rejected non-Newtonian physics for much of my life, but I do so no longer. If showing a red stoplight, the word "Rejected", and Phil Schiller calling you to say the app's not in the store doesn't mean the app was rejected than the phrase has no meaning. (Again, don't have any insider knowledge here; just inferring what happened based on my experience with app rejections). Further, even playing by Apple's own semantics (which I take strong issue with), there's clearly an "Application status" called "Rejected". So even if they were to suddenly become nihilists and apps are never rejected, that's not consistent with what the iTunes Connect interface actually says, which (IANAL) I presume is legally actionable with respect to what constitutes an official Apple communication.
citrik 17y ago
So, I'm a little confused about the root issue here. Can anyone explain what's so special about Google Voice compared to Skype? It seems that Apple has approved an app with a similar functionality in Skype for the iPhone. Is there something extra special about Google Voice that I'm not seeing? If the two apps are functionally identical maybe Apple is hung up on some aspect of the implementation. The whole "Apple believed the application duplicated the core dialer functionality of the iPhone” sounds like it could be more of a technical issue vs a functionality / religion issue. (Religion being Thou shall not make phone calls without glorious At&T)
- j_b_f 17y ago
  There's no relevant difference between GV and the plethora VOIP & dialer apps out there. At least none that would be explained away with a straight face by the "core functionality" argument.
- blhack 17y ago
  Google voice not only replaces visual voice mail, it improves it dramatically. Apparently, AT&T sunk a massive amount of cash into this feature. Google also offers the ability to send and receive text messages (a major revenue generator for phone companies) for free. Google voice basically took every reason you should drop cash on an iphone, and gave it away for free.
econoplas 17y ago
Apple could easily reject Google voice app with their "thy program shalt not containeth an interpretereth" loophole in the iPhone SDK agreement section 3.3.2... they've done this with at least one app that I'm aware of (http://toucharcade.com/2009/06/20/full-commodore-64-emulator-rejected-from-app-store/ http://toucharcade.com/2009/06/20/full-commodore-64-emulator... and http://www.manomio.com/index.php/blog/important_update http://www.manomio.com/index.php/blog/important_update). How many programs nowadays of the complexity of Google voice don't use some kind of internal state machine interpreter or domain-specific-language to simplify the programming model? So they could use that loophole in a negative way to hinder competition whenever they choose to do so, not saying they "would" but they certainly "could".
- GHFigs 17y ago
  Except they "didn't". They've already listed their reasons (http://www.apple.com/hotnews/apple-answers-fcc-questions/ http://www.apple.com/hotnews/apple-answers-fcc-questions/) and to my knowledge have never used the interpreter rule in anything remotely resembling the way you describe.
ulysses 17y ago
Really? Contradicting something another company has said is "A Nuke"? A nuke would be Google search blocking iPhones.
- WilliamLP 17y ago
  A nuke would be critical mass of U235 dropped on Apple headquarters:)
Luc 17y ago
I would have appreciated a more descriptive title instead of the tabloid style one. Apologies if that seems fussy.
arithmetic 17y ago
Does anyone even care? Even if there was Google Voice on the iPhone, would you use it? Having said that, the TC headline may as well be right. This is one nuke that Apple is going to find hard to swallow.

72 points by vaksel 17y ago

Am I missing something, or are screenshots impossible to fake now? I make fake screens all the time for fun.

We’re offering a free TechCrunch tshirt to any Google employee that forwards that screenshot to us. No questions asked. Anyone left on HN who still wants to stand up for Arrington's reputation as a journalist?

logic 17y ago
I expected the TechCrunch readership to not get a little jab of humor, but here too?
- dfranke 17y ago
  It isn't funny. Arrington seems to think it is, but apparently all he's laughing at is his own lack of ethics rather than at any intended jest: i mean, sure, we’d take the docs and deliver the tshirt. but we do have one or two other ways of getting information.
mullr 17y ago
I find that a little funny. By wearing the free t-shirt, wouldn't everybody know what it's you that leaked said screenshot? Unless everybody at google regularly wears techcrunch clothing, which probably isn't likely. He should probably offer something which doesn't implicitly identify his source.
- idm 17y ago
  I hope the shirt says, "I leaked evidence in my employer's multi-million-dollar lawsuit and all I got was this lousy t-shirt"
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    What lawsuit?
ksvs 17y ago
There are few reporters who wouldn't accept leaked documents. Some of the most famous news stories were based on leaks.
- dfranke 17y ago
  There are hopefully considerably fewer offering explicit quid pro quos for said documents.
  - mikedouglas 17y ago
    Putting aside that we're talking about a shirt, what is unethical about buying leaked information, as long as it is legitimate news?
    - dfranke 17y ago
      It's not legitimate news. It's confidential correspondence. Arrington is seeking to bribe a Google employee to betray his employer by breaching his NDA. If the document were evidence of wrongdoing on Google's part, it would be a different matter -- the employee would be a whistleblower and his betrayal would be laudable. But that's not what we're talking about. Google is the victim of the alleged wrongdoing. If the information gets leaked, they're victimized even further by being deprived of a bargaining chip with Apple.
      - mikedouglas 17y ago
        It's not legitimate news. Apple lied in an official FCC inquiry. That's news. Arrington is seeking to bribe a Google employee to betray his employer by breaching his NDA. The vast majority of news leaks throughout history have been based on ulterior motives; whether they are politically or financially-based, seems inconsequential. TechCrunch isn't a party to that NDA, so they should only consider the public interest of the story. If the information gets leaked, they're victimized even further by being deprived of a bargaining chip with Apple. What bargaining chip? The ability to collude to scuttle a government investigation? If the FCC asks for the letter, Google has to give it up anyways.
erlanger 17y ago
I don't see a problem with this.
- tlrobinson 17y ago
  The only problem I see is it will be trivial to find the culprit, just look for the Googler wearing a TC shirt.
  - euccastro 17y ago
    He'd wear it inside out.
anonjon 17y ago
"I posted Google's last bargaining chip on Tech Crunch and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt." At least do what the other mediocre tabloids do and expect to pay a bounty for Bat Boy pictures.
idm 17y ago
I'm in the "t-shirt was a joke" camp, but this does cause me to wonder: is this alleged screenshot also a joke? I mean, in the context of the t-shirt thing, just how credible can Arrington's screenshot claim be, anyway?
- bmelton 17y ago
  What strikes me as worrisome is that, at least by the tone of the article, there is no possible doubt in Arrington's mind that the screenshot exists, and that it is EXACTLY what was claimed to him, and he hasn't even seen it. I'm sure it's a somewhat thin argument, but I personally would think they'd start reserving their over-committal in the wake of the Facebook-picture-fax thing. I mean, they bought that hook, line and sinker, and that was a hoax they at least SAW.
  - mikedouglas 17y ago
    What strikes me as worrisome is that, at least by the tone of the article, there is no possible doubt in Arrington's mind that the screenshot exists, and that it is EXACTLY what was claimed to him, and he hasn't even seen it. This is a far better critique of TechCrunch than the "quid pro quo" angle.
    - dfranke 17y ago
      Yes, it is indeed a better critique. That should have occurred to me.
pjvandehaar 17y ago
This is disproved by the fact that at least 10 perfectly photoshopped screenshots had to have been submitted in the first hour, and have not been posted.
jkincaid 17y ago
It's a joke. Up to you whether you think it's funny or not, but as grounds to question his credibility? Lighten up.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
zaidf 17y ago
I once passed on a story to TC that had one upvote on HN at the time. It went on to become a huge sensation online and in print worldwide. I won't disclose it but basically the company threatened to sue all involved in spreading it. Afraid, I wrote to Arrington and he assured me he'd rather goto jail than out a source. Of course I never seriously thought the company had a case(especially against me). I just took a public link and fwded it to someone who made it big. Very different from leaking.
- Nwallins 17y ago
  > I once passed on a story to TC that had one upvote on HN The meaning of this is completely changed if you parse it like: I once passed on a story...
josefresco 17y ago
Anyone HN left with a sense of humor? dranke apparently lost his.

jongraehl 17y ago

Screenshots are evidence because you'd really have to be lame to spend the effort on a perfect forgery? Is it that they do feel shame and won't falsely claim forgery on top of what they're already caught at?

gojomo 17y ago

Anyone have a copy of any bona-fide Apple App Store rejection notice? It's possible both sides are playing semantic games. A "we can't include this app at this time without tweaks" could be seen as a 'rejection' or merely a 'request for info/changes' depending on your perspective. I wouldn't put it past Apple to have carefully worded all 'rejections' and 'approvals' so that there is always wiggle room in both directions.

drewcrawford 17y ago
False. The iTunes Connect interface displays a red stoplight and a "Rejected" indication when an app has been rejected. Can't be clearer than that. Now whether or not they showed this image to Google I haven't the foggiest idea, but that's the way it's always happened to me. Behold: http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/59605/imgboards/Screen%20shot%202009-09-18%20at%209.37.09%20PM.png http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/59605/imgboards/Screen%20shot%202... As for e-mail rejection notices, they can be a little weasley. Here's the operative sentence in a rejection I got from Apple: > We've reviewed [app name] and determined that we cannot post this version of your iPhone application to the App Store because [reason].
- gojomo 17y ago
  Thanks for the details! Though, I can see Apple's wiggle-room still. The image talks about rejecting a 'binary'. The boilerplate text, rejecting a 'version'. So picturing myself seated on Apple's (self-interested, self-serving) mental furniture, they may interpret things as: "We've rejected a version, and rejected a binary, but the app itself is still (and perpetually!) eligible for further consideration."
  - drewcrawford 17y ago
    Now we're playing semantics. The problem with redefining "rejecting an app" is that the phrase already has a perfectly good meaning: "dismiss as inadequate, inappropriate, or not to one's taste." Rejecting doesn't (have to) imply permanence; I rejected non-Newtonian physics for much of my life, but I do so no longer. If showing a red stoplight, the word "Rejected", and Phil Schiller calling you to say the app's not in the store doesn't mean the app was rejected than the phrase has no meaning. (Again, don't have any insider knowledge here; just inferring what happened based on my experience with app rejections). Further, even playing by Apple's own semantics (which I take strong issue with), there's clearly an "Application status" called "Rejected". So even if they were to suddenly become nihilists and apps are never rejected, that's not consistent with what the iTunes Connect interface actually says, which (IANAL) I presume is legally actionable with respect to what constitutes an official Apple communication.

citrik 17y ago

So, I'm a little confused about the root issue here. Can anyone explain what's so special about Google Voice compared to Skype? It seems that Apple has approved an app with a similar functionality in Skype for the iPhone. Is there something extra special about Google Voice that I'm not seeing? If the two apps are functionally identical maybe Apple is hung up on some aspect of the implementation. The whole "Apple believed the application duplicated the core dialer functionality of the iPhone” sounds like it could be more of a technical issue vs a functionality / religion issue. (Religion being Thou shall not make phone calls without glorious At&T)

j_b_f 17y ago
There's no relevant difference between GV and the plethora VOIP & dialer apps out there. At least none that would be explained away with a straight face by the "core functionality" argument.
blhack 17y ago
Google voice not only replaces visual voice mail, it improves it dramatically. Apparently, AT&T sunk a massive amount of cash into this feature. Google also offers the ability to send and receive text messages (a major revenue generator for phone companies) for free. Google voice basically took every reason you should drop cash on an iphone, and gave it away for free.

econoplas 17y ago

Apple could easily reject Google voice app with their "thy program shalt not containeth an interpretereth" loophole in the iPhone SDK agreement section 3.3.2... they've done this with at least one app that I'm aware of (http://toucharcade.com/2009/06/20/full-commodore-64-emulator-rejected-from-app-store/ http://toucharcade.com/2009/06/20/full-commodore-64-emulator... and http://www.manomio.com/index.php/blog/important_update http://www.manomio.com/index.php/blog/important_update). How many programs nowadays of the complexity of Google voice don't use some kind of internal state machine interpreter or domain-specific-language to simplify the programming model? So they could use that loophole in a negative way to hinder competition whenever they choose to do so, not saying they "would" but they certainly "could".

GHFigs 17y ago
Except they "didn't". They've already listed their reasons (http://www.apple.com/hotnews/apple-answers-fcc-questions/ http://www.apple.com/hotnews/apple-answers-fcc-questions/) and to my knowledge have never used the interpreter rule in anything remotely resembling the way you describe.

ulysses 17y ago

Really? Contradicting something another company has said is "A Nuke"? A nuke would be Google search blocking iPhones.

WilliamLP 17y ago
A nuke would be critical mass of U235 dropped on Apple headquarters:)

Luc 17y ago

I would have appreciated a more descriptive title instead of the tabloid style one. Apologies if that seems fussy.

arithmetic 17y ago

Does anyone even care? Even if there was Google Voice on the iPhone, would you use it? Having said that, the TC headline may as well be right. This is one nuke that Apple is going to find hard to swallow.