Apple: The mini-monopoly finally draws heat...

[Santilli]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/01/AR2009080101074.html

Why The FCC Wants To Smash Open The iPhone

Saturday, August 1, 2009; 6:27 AM

Right about now, Apple probably wishes it had never rejected Google Voice and related apps from the iPhone. Or maybe it was AT&T who rejected the apps. Nobody really knows. But the FCC launched an investigation last night to find out, sending letters to all three companies (Apple, AT&T, and Google) asking them to explain exactly what happened.

On its face, it might seem odd to some people that the FCC is investigating the rejection of a single iPhone app. After all, iPhone apps are rejected every day. But the Google Voice rejection caused an unusual amount of uproar, and there is nothing like a high-profile case to make an example out of in pursuit of pushing a bigger policy agenda. The FCC investigation is not just about the arbitrary rejection of a single app. It is the FCC's way of putting a stake in the ground for making the wireless networks controlled by cell phone carriers as open as the Internet.

Today there are two different sets of rules for applications and devices on the Internet. On the wired Internet, we can connect any type of PC or other computing device and use any applications we want on those devices. On the wireless Internet controlled by cellular carriers like AT&T, we can only use the phones they allow on their networks and can only use the applications they approve. This was fine when the wireless networks were used mostly just for voice calls. But now that they are increasingly becoming our mobile connections to the Internet and mobile phones are becoming full-fledged mobile computers, an argument has been growing that the same rules of open access that rule the wired Internet should apply to the wireless Internet.

While Apple and AT&T cannot be too happy about the FCC investigation, Google must secretly be pleased as punch. It was only two years ago, prior to the 700MHz wireless spectrum auctions, that it was pleading with the FCC to adopt principles guaranteeing open access for applications, devices, services, and other networks. Now two years later, in a different context and under a different administration, the FCC is pushing for the same principles.

In its letters requesting more information from all three companies, the FCC cites "pending FCC proceedings regarding wireless open access (RM-11361) and handset exclusivity (RM-11497). That first proceeding on open access dates back to 2007 when Skype requested that cell phone carriers open up their networks to all applications (see Skype's petition here). Like Google Voice, Skype helps consumers bypass the carriers. The carriers don't like that because it erodes their core business and turns them into dumb pipes.

But dumb pipes are what we need. They are good for consumers and good for competition because they allow any application and any device, within reason, to flower on the wireless Internet. So if you look at the questions the FCC is asking, it wants to know why the Google Voice app was rejected and whether AT&T (the carrier) had anything to do with that rejection:

2. Did Apple act alone, or in consultation with AT&T, in deciding to reject the Google Voice application and related applications? . . . 3. Does AT&T have any role in the approval of iPhone applications generally (or in certain cases)? If so, under what circumstances, and what role does it play?

The FCC also wants Apple to explain the arbitrariness of its app approval process:

4. Please explain any differences between the Google Voice iPhone application and any Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) applications that Apple has approved for the iPhone. Are any of the approved VoIP applications allowed to operate on AT&T?s 3G network?5. What other applications have been rejected for use on the iPhone and for what reasons? Is there a list of prohibited applications or of categories of applications that is provided to potential vendors/developers? If so, is this posted on the iTunes website or otherwise disclosed to consumers?6. What are the standards for considering and approving iPhone applications? What is the approval process for such applications (timing, reasons for rejection, appeal process, etc.)? What is the percentage of applications that are rejected? What are the major reasons for rejecting an application?

Good questions. Hopefully, the FCC will share Apple's answers with the rest of the us. It is all a bit absurd, though. Why does it take a formal request from a government agency to get Apple (and AT&T) to explain what the rules are to get on the wireless Internet? More importantly, why are these companies allowed to be the gatekeepers to the wireless Internet? The iPhone needs to be smashed open, and the FCC is swinging the hammer.

Update: AT&T responded to this post with the following statements:

AT&T does not manage or approve applications for the App Store. We have received the letter and will, of course, respond to it.Customers can use any compatible GSM phone on our network, not just the ones we?ve approved and sell. And they also can use apps we don?t approve. We don?t approve iPhone applications.

So there you have it. You can use any mobile app you like on AT&T?unless it is an iPhone app (that's been rejected by Apple). Does Apple ever reject apps at the request of AT&T though? Maybe they'll give the FCC a straight answer.

 

[udaman]

:rotfl: .... >

Apple: The mini-monopoly finally draws heat...

As a lawyer, can you back up your "opinion" with some Ps & As?

Wonder what Google CEO & current Apple Board member Eric Schmidt is going to publicly say Given Apple's secrecy about Steve Job's serious health problems/liver transplant, with an SEC investigation pending, I would think Apple will be as coy and unresponsive as ever ... the lawyers made them do it.

Here let me CnP a less 'biased' article/report:

http://www.appleinsider.com/article...apple_att_for_google_voice_app_rejection.html

FCC investigates Apple, AT&T for Google Voice app rejection [updated]

By Aidan Malley
Published: 08:40 PM EST

​

Apple's decision to reject Google Voice apps for the iPhone -- possibly at AT&T's request -- has prompted an FCC investigation into the anti-competitive nature of the move. A day later, AT&T has briefly denied the implied accusations.

The US government agency on Friday sent letters to Apple, AT&T and Google asking them to explain their roles in both rejecting Google's own app as well as pulling at least two third-party apps that were already available.

Besides inquiring into Apple's involvement, the letters also ask AT&T whether it was asked for an opinion and Google to outline both Google Voice as well as whether Google has had other apps approved. In practice, Google has only released a handful of apps but has ported over Google Earth from the desktop and used once-hidden programming instructions from Apple to develop the voice search component of Google Mobile App for the device.

The questions come as part of a larger investigation into the access to exclusive phones for rural customers, some of whom can't buy an iPhone or a similar handset simply because the relevant carriers don't operate in their areas.

What if anything the FCC suspects isn't immediately apparent. However, it's probable that the inquiry will look into whether or not AT&T wanted Google Voice absent to prevent competition with its own services, as it doesn't significantly tax the carrier's data network but does render it much less expensive to call long distance numbers and send text messages.

On Saturday, AT&T indicated that it was aware of the implications but directly denied any involvement in the App Store approval process.

"AT&T does not manage or approve applications for the App Store," company spokesman Brad Mays said. "We have received the letter and will, of course, respond to it."

Neither Apple nor Google have commented on the investigation themselves, but AT&T in the past has freely acknowledged that it doesn't want voice over IP apps like Skype, or TV-to-phone streaming apps like SlingPlayer Mobile, running on iPhones using its 3G network due to bandwidth concerns.​

 

[Santilli]

No, as a former Mac 10 year user, I can remember many 3rd party software writers put out of business by Apple. Write a decent ap for the mac, they would either copy it, and modify it just a little, so they could put it into their software, either OS, or for sale, and run you out of business. Sub-standard chips, forcing you to buy the next up, or higher up the profit pole to get the features you wanted to use. The upgrade of the month for the OS, 129 dollar a pop beta testing program for you to iron the bugs out of apple's switch to
BSD/Linux/whatever.
I can't remember how many hardware updates were defeated either by Apples' lack of support, or intentionally refusing to release key
code to write drivers for the mac side. Pretty soon, everyone quit trying.
Proprietary hardware, for 3x what it was worth on the PC side. My favorite was a 160 watt power supply in a 3000 dollar G3, though the Grackle 70 mb/sec limited chipset wasn't far behind.

OS X failing to support scsi out of the blocks. Apple has a name built on cutthroat business practices, using many marginal components, at real computer component, or higher, prices.

Combining AT&T and Apple is combining two of the companies that have tried as hard as they could to maintain monopoly positions, whenever possible. I'm old enough to remember when AT&@ has a monopoly in Kali, and, ripped folks off, big time.

The current cable companies are looking a bit too oil company type price fixing for my tastes right now, and, I suspect that hasn't missed the Feds.

Not to mention the entire phone/provider monopoly, exclusive stuff that's going on.
What ever they want to say, when you have to pay 500 dollars for the phone you want, if the provider doesn't sell it, or, use their phone, for less then half that, you are skating on monopoly ice. Whenever a company sells a product, or gives it away, as these cell phone companies do, with a service contract, you are providing a product for under it's cost, and, that is one of the key red flags for anti-monopoly law, along with the fact that all the major producers seem to be charging the same prices.

Also, the Feds must be a bit frustrated, since phones over computer services has so far evaded their massive tax bundle. I recently switched, since my econo 9.99 a month line was costing me 20 dollars a month, after taxes.

All of this was tolerable until MSFT put out 2000 PRO. That was the end of the Mac/Apple stuff for me...

 

[Handruin]

What ever they want to say, when you have to pay 500 dollars for the phone you want, if the provider doesn't sell it, or, use their phone, for less then half that, you are skating on monopoly ice. Whenever a company sells a product, or gives it away, as these cell phone companies do, with a service contract, you are providing a product for under it's cost, and, that is one of the key red flags for anti-monopoly law, along with the fact that all the major producers seem to be charging the same prices.

The phone is $600 retail, but the $200 new customer pricing is supposed to be offset by the monthly service costs to help reduce the initial burden. The part that is never taken into account is that after the two-year contract, the price never goes down, so the subsidized repayment of the phone is for as long as a customer is willing to stay provided he/she does not upgrade again.

Honestly I think AT&T is behind the app rejection. They are scared of the potentially loss of income from using their lines. I'm annoyed because I want to use the google voice app on my phone. I think they've seen a lot of bad press about iPhone app rejections due to duplicated features. A balance and falling-out will eventually occur and Apple will need to readjust their app-policing.

 

[sechs]

The AppleGoo soap opera has been getting interesting recently.

This FCC business on top of the SEC investigation on their common directors has made me wonder why we didn't notice until recently that these two companies were really competitors.

 

[Howell]

The AppleGoo soap opera has been getting interesting recently.

This FCC business on top of the SEC investigation on their common directors has made me wonder why we didn't notice until recently that these two companies were really competitors.

I don't know that Apple is so much a competitor with ATT as ATT phone competes with ATT data.