<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Nietz &#187; Apple</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thenietz.com/category/tech/apple/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thenietz.com</link>
	<description>Sniffing out tech</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Oct 2011 03:16:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Google vs. Apple vs. AT&amp;T vs. FTC:  let the finger pointing begin</title>
		<link>http://www.thenietz.com/2009/08/22/google-vs-apple-vs-att-vs-ftc-let-the-finger-pointing-begin/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thenietz.com/2009/08/22/google-vs-apple-vs-att-vs-ftc-let-the-finger-pointing-begin/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Aug 2009 19:13:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Stephen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thenietz.com/?p=57</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If this thing opens up it's going to get real ugly real fast.  Sadly, it won't.  Each side has is dying to win, has a ton to lose, yet at the same time doesn't want the other sides to be held legally accountable, since they'd then be held to the same standards. At the end of the day the respective legal teams are going to sit down and decide what's more valuable to them, hurting the other guy or protecting themselves.  This'll be  a defensive battle.  Self protection wins.

But until that happens, it's fun to watch the finger pointing]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If this thing opens up it&#8217;s going to get real ugly real fast.  Sadly, it won&#8217;t.  Each side has is dying to win, has a ton to lose, yet at the same time doesn&#8217;t want the other sides to be held legally accountable, since they&#8217;d then be held to the same standards. At the end of the day the respective legal teams are going to sit down and decide what&#8217;s more valuable to them, hurting the other guy or protecting themselves.  This&#8217;ll be  a defensive battle.  Self protection wins.</p>
<p>But until that happens, it&#8217;s fun to watch the finger pointing</p>
<p>Apple:  &#8220;Technically, we didn&#8217;t reject the app.  We&#8217;re still studying it.  Kinda like the Ark of the Covenant.&#8221;</p>
<p>AT&amp;T: &#8220;Wasn&#8217;t us.&#8221;  &#8220;Sure it might have ruined us, but it isn&#8217;t our app store.  Please don&#8217;t look at all those phone calls to Apple.  We were just setting up a tea time.  honest.&#8221;</p>
<p>Google: &#8220;[redacted]&#8221;</p>
<p>In their own words. First, Apple:</p>
<p>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 Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail.</p>
<p>Want to know more?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/08/apple-att-and-google-respond-to-feds-on-google-voice-rejection/">Wired </a> has a quick summary.  <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/18983640/Google-Response-to-FCC">Read</a> Google&#8217;s response (the part that isn&#8217;t redacted) <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/18983512/ATT-Response-to-FCC-iPhone-Letter-082109-as-Filed">Read </a>AT&amp;T&#8217;s response.</p>
<p>For more details there&#8217;s a pretty good analysis by <a href="httphttp://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/21/the-simple-truth-whats-really-going-on-with-apple-google-att-and-the-fcc/">Techcrunch</a>.  (and<a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/21/apples-response-to-the-fcc-we-didnt-reject-the-google-voice-app-were-still-looking-at-it/"> more in depth information about</a> it and the <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/21/app-store-exposed-notes-of-interest-from-apples-statement-to-the-fcc/">approval process </a>too. ) Along with some good comments on<a href="http://lifehacker.com/5342975/google-apple-and-att-all-make-their-statements-to-the-fcc-over-google-voice"> lifehacker</a>.  <a href="http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/09/08/21/2115245/Why-ATT-Killed-iPhone-Google-Voice">Grampa /.</a> talks about it too.<a href="http://gizmodo.com/5342954/apple-and-att-answer-fcc-about-google-voice-rejection-its-all-apple"> And Giz</a>.  <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/21/atandt-tells-the-fcc-it-had-no-role-in-removing-google-voice-fro/">And Engadget.</a> Pretty much everyone</p>
<p>Why is this important?  because if any of the three parties win, we win big.  <a href="http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/consumerist/full/~3/CIaQU7KP2wc/class-action-suit-against-apple-and-att-for-lack-of-mms-on-iphones">Look at the class action suit over MMS.</a> Right now there&#8217;s just finger pointing and speculation.  If we can put the blame squarely on a single company (&lt;cough&gt; AT&amp;T) They will be forced to start making some changes.  But it gets tricky, by the same token, Google, <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/21/google-we-never-blocked-skype-from-android/">who may or may not have blocked a VOIP application in it&#8217;s own app store </a>will also have some &#8216;splainin to do.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thenietz.com/2009/08/22/google-vs-apple-vs-att-vs-ftc-let-the-finger-pointing-begin/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

