Apple, Google and AT&T today all replied to letters they received from the Federal Communications Commission sent on July 31 regarding what's been widely described as a rejection of an iPhone application that works Google Voice, Google's call-management and voice mail service.
In a five-page letter Apple responds point-by-point to the FCC's questions. Here are some highlights:
Asked why Apple rejected the Google Voice application for iPhone, Apple says it hasn't, and "continues to study" it:
"Contrary to published reports, Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application, and continues to study it. The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone's distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone's core mobile telephone functionality and API user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail. The Google Voice application replaces Apple's Visual Voicemail by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number that stores any voicemail, preventing voicemail from stored on the phone, i.e., disabling Apple's Visual Voicemail.These factors present several new issues and questions to us that we are still pondering at this time."
Apple goes on to say, that Google is free to provide access to Google Voice via the iPhones Safari Web browser just as it does for PCs.
Asked if it acted alone or in consultation with AT&T, Apple says it has acted alone, and "has not consulted with AT&T about whether or not to approve the Google Voice application". It further says there's nothing in the contracts governing their relationship that affects Apple's reasoning in the matter.
Asked if AT&T has any role in approving applications that appear in the App store generally, Apple says it alone decides which apps make it into the store. However, "there is a provision in Apple’s agreement with AT&T that obligates Apple not to include functionality in any Apple iPhone that enables a customer to AT&T's cellular network service to originate or terminate a VOIP session without obtaining AT&T's permission". That explains, among other things, why Skype calls on an iPhone can only be connected via Wi-Fi. Apple further says that from time to AT&T "has expressed concerns regarding network efficiency and potential network congestion associated with certain applications".
Asked about other applications that Apple has rejected, and the reasons why, Apple says it has approved more than 65,000 applications, and has rejected apps for a variety of reasons. "Most rejections are based on the application containing quality issues or software bugs, while other rejections involve protecting consumer privacy, safeguarding children from inappropriate content, and avoiding applications that degrade the core experience of the iPhone." Most of the review process, it says, is consumed with quality issues and software bugs, and providing feedback to developers so those problems can be fixed. Once fixed, those applications are approved, the letter says.
Apple then goes on to list a few applications that have been rejected: Twittelator was rejected initially because it crashed during loading. iLoveWiFi! was rejected because it used "undocumented application protocols", and has not been resubmitted since. SlingPlayer Mobile was rejected initially because of a provision in the AT&T customer terms of service agreement that prohibits redirecting a TV signal to the phone. As with Skype, the app now works only via Wi-Fi and has since been approved. Another app was rejected because it displayed nudity and sexually explicit content.
Finally it said that 95 percent of applications are approved within 14 days of initial submission.
Google and AT&T responded to their respective letters as well. Highlights from those, and links to the originals after the jump.
In its 12-page response, AT&T said it had "no role in any decision by Apple to not accept the Google Voice application for inclusion in the Apple App Store. AT&T was not asked about the matter by Apple at any time, nor did it offer any view one way or the other," it said.
AT&T goes on to add further color about the kinds of iPhone applications about which it expresses concerns to Apple. Examples: Pandora and AOL's streaming radio application. "AT&T and Apple discussed streaming audio iPhone applications proposed by Pandora and AOL and, in particular, the potential congestion that these applications may cause on AT&T's 3G network. After these applications were included in the Apple App Store, Apple upgraded the technology used to stream these services in order to further optimize usage on the network."
Another that caused a concern was one from MobiTV and CBS that was to stream video of the NCAA Basketball tournament over both Wi-Fi and AT&T's 3G network. AT&T was concerned that the app might cause network degradations, especially at cell sites neat college campuses at schools whose teams were playing in the tournament. "Apple conveyed these concerns to MobiTV and CBS, who modified their application to deliver live video, audio and scores over Wi-Fi, while delivering live audio, still photos and scores over AT&T's 3G network," AT&T noted.
AT&T goes on to defend its stance against VOIP applications running on its 3G network. Having both invested "substantial capital and other resources" to bring the iPhone to market, "...both parties required assurances that the revenues from the AT&T voice plans available to iPhone customers would not be reduced by enabling VoIP calling functionality on the iPhone. Thus, AT&T and Apple agreed that Apple would not take affirmative steps to enable an iPhone to use AT&T’s wireless service to make VoIP calls." It goes on to say that it provides iPhone customers with "the largest subsidy AT&T has ever provided on a wireless handset, on both a per-unit and aggregate basis."
Google's letter, is six pages long, and potentially more interesting, but the best part is confidential. Its entire response to question two, which covers what explanation if Google was given for the rejection of the Google Voice application, is redacted.
Asked to compare its application rejection process for the Android marketplace to that of the iPhone app store, Google say it relies mostly upon the Android market community to flag applications that don't abide by its policies and standards. Once has app has been flagged enough times, it can be removed after a review by Google staff. It says about 1 precent of submitted applications are removed in this way.
Play video
There are currently no comments for this post.