FCC steps in to investigate Apple, AT&T over Google Voice app rejection

[Imran Siddiqui]

How does forcing competing cellphones to have the exact same software suites encourage competition? Where's the freedom of choice?

Are you confused as to what Google Voice is? It's a third party application. The user chooses whether to install it or not. The user... get this... gets to choose if they want it on their phone.

[-Jrabbit]

Apple's deal with AT&T is certainly fair game for the FCC, although if they are going there, any number of other sweetheart and/or exclusive carrier deals that limited consumer choice of carriers and/or handsets should also be looked at.

But I see no reason that an uninvited 3rd party app developer -- especially one in direct competition with Apple via Chrome, Chrome OS and Android -- should expect any other result than the rejection Apple gave their two recent applications for the Apps store.

And no, I don't see this (apps sales) as being within the FCC's purview. My sense is that Google is throwing their considerable weight around behind the scenes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

IIRC, the FCC, especially under Obama, has been looking at carrier lock in deals. It's why Verizon recently said that any lock in deal will only last 6 months (because they are feeling the weight of it).

I think in the terms of the 3rd party apps, though, it is a competition issue. In some respects anti-trust overlaps in telecommunications, because, as Dan has pointed out, this is the public's airwaves that they are using and the Communications Act and Telecommunications Act have specified that one of the FCC's goals is to promote competition. Applications (its not a sale, because I believe GVoice is free) is a fairly new thing in telecommunications and I think the FCC is investigating to see if it runs foul of the regulations on the books (or whether new regulations need to be drawn up).

Under the Obama Administration, I think you'll see the FCC be more active in these roles... as they've had the power, but weren't all the aggressive with them in the Bush Administration (for obvious reasons).

[Imran Siddiqui]

This arstechnica article is really good:

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/08/fcc-probes-google-voice-rejection-att-denies-involvement.ars

Apple and AT&T opened up a can of worms when Apple not only rejected Google's native Google Voice iPhone app, but summarily purged the App Store of any application that worked with Google Voice. The FCC has been giving the exclusive deals between handset makers and mobile carriers a lot of scrutiny lately, and now the FCC is looking into Google Voice-gate. The FCC has informed Apple and AT&T that it is trying to determine if the exclusivity between Apple and AT&T is having adverse effects on developers and consumers.

A group of Senators asked the FCC to examine handset exclusivity agreements that have become more prevalent—and have come into the spotlight with Apple's iPhone. FCC chairman Julius Genachowski promised to look into the issue, even before his appointment to the FCC became official. The investigation has been ongoing recently, prompting hearings before the Senate Commerce and Science Committee, prompting Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) to say that there are "too many places in this country where wireless call quality is low and service is unreliable—places where wireless broadband is only a pipe dream."

The recent expunging of Google Voice apps from the iPhone App Store prompted the FCC to find out just how much influence AT&T had on the decision to remove those apps. AT&T is denying it had any influence over Apple in regard to Google Voice, or other Google Voice compatible apps. "AT&T does not manage or approve applications for the App Store," AT&T spokesperson Brad Mays told Ars.

But AT&T's history with iPhone apps leaves questions as to whether the telecom influenced the Google Voice fiasco. AT&T has admitted that it moved to have functionality of the SlingPlayer app for the iPhone limited to WiFi connections only, despite the fact that there are versions on other smartphones available on AT&T's network that carry no such restriction. It should also be noted that Google Voice apps also exist for other smartphones available from AT&T.

The FCC is also asking Apple about AT&T's role in the decision, but what it really wants to understand is how Apple goes about accepting or rejecting applications. "Is there a list of prohibited applications or of categories of applications that is provided to potential vendors/developers," asks a letter sent to Apple. "If so, is this posted on the iTunes website or otherwise disclosed to consumers? What are the major reasons for rejecting an application?" Beyond some vague notions of what's not allowed, given in the developer agreement, Apple maintains—to the endless consternation of iPhone developers—no such official list, though there is an effort underway to document the various reasons Apple has given for some of its spurious app rejections.

The FCC has its own questions for Google as well: it's asking about iPhone apps that Google has had approved and rejected, like Google Latitude. The FCC is also curious about what discussions might have taken place between Google and either Apple or AT&T regarding its apps (we know Google works with Apple on its apps), how users can access features of Google Voice in lieu of a native app (via Safari, so it makes little sense to reject a native app), and how things are different on its Android platform (basically, completely different).

Ars caught up with FCC chairman Julius Genachowski on Sunday at a National Broadband Plan promotional event in San Francisco, and asked if he thought that the FCC has the statutory authority to tell Apple to allow Google Voice on the iPhone. "At this point we're trying to understand the situation," Genachowski told Ars. "What we read about in the last week or so is relevant to some proceedings at the FCC. The agency is the country's expert agency on communications. And it needs to be proactive to understand what's going on in the marketplace that's relevant to its proceedings."

The logically inconsistent way apps are rejected is in some cases leaving consumers without access to apps that are widely available on other platforms. Even having a seat (at least until recently) on Apple's board wasn't enough to get Google Voice approved. And AT&T's exclusivity has had its own issues, recently highlighted by the lack of support for iPhone OS 3.0's tethering and MMS capabilities. Already some developers and even some users have sworn off the iPhone, and now the FCC is breathing down both Apple's and AT&T's necks. The rejection of Google Voice may be the straw that broke the camel's back when it comes to issues with the iPhone, particularly here in the US.

[loinburger]

For anybody saying that Apple should have the right to arbitrarily lock out 3rd party apps, would you say the same would be true of Microsoft? For example, would it be kosher for Microsoft to prevent iTunes from running on Windows?

And before you say "hurf durf who cares I could just bypass Microsoft's nixing of iTunes," let me remind you to go jump up your butt.

[Asher]

The app I'm developing these days got rejected by Apple the other week. Why? The new version added a "connect me to this number" feature. It's a directory listing (yellowpages) app, and if it was long-distance you could use our service for free to connect to them and avoid long-distance charges (via VoIP). This is stuff we've done on the PC for years now. But Apple rejected it because it's a service that would gouge their partner's revenues, by providing increased competition to the long-distance market.

Note this isn't a "enter any number you want and get free long distance" app -- it was an option only available for advertisers in the yellowpages.

[DanS]

lb: This is a different case. Microsoft has been determined by a court of law to be a monopolist in operating systems. Apple has not and probably is in no danger of being sued for being a monopoly. What might be unlawful for Microsoft to do might be merely vigorous competitive action for Apple.

That said, AT&T is a successor to Ma Bell. If Apple was asked or forced by AT&T to deny the Google Voice apps, then we should be interested in that fact.

[-Jrabbit]

For anybody saying that Apple should have the right to arbitrarily lock out 3rd party apps, would you say the same would be true of Microsoft? For example, would it be kosher for Microsoft to prevent iTunes from running on Windows?

And before you say "hurf durf who cares I could just bypass Microsoft's nixing of iTunes," let me remind you to go jump up your butt.

I think there's an important distinction to be made between letting something exist and being forced to distribute it on behalf of a competitor.

I have no idea how this works within the Apple ecosystem. Are apps developers allowed to attempt distribution outside the App Store? If not, why not? That would be restraint of trade.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Are apps developers allowed to attempt distribution outside the App Store?

AFAIK, no, they aren't.

[Asher]

Legally, the only way to get apps on the iPhone is through Apple's store.

There's ways to install it otherwise (jailbreaking), but Apple not only fearmongers about this with outright lies ("it'll crash cell towers, it's a security risk, etc"), and not only with legal threats ("doing so violates the DMCA!"), but they also resort to breaking functionality on jailbroken phones (they don't have proper push notifications).

Apple is also recently guilty of intentionally breaking iTunes so the sync with the Palm Pre fails.

Apple is starting to stink really, really badly in the "being evil" category. Frankly, far more than MS ever has.

[Kuciwalker]

I think there's an important distinction to be made between letting something exist and being forced to distribute it on behalf of a competitor.

I have no idea how this works within the Apple ecosystem. Are apps developers allowed to attempt distribution outside the App Store? If not, why not? That would be restraint of trade.

No, you have to hack the operating system ('jailbreak') to even enable Apps that aren't from the App Store.

[-Jrabbit]

Interesting. Sounds fairly evil. Enough so that I can understand why the FCC would check it out.

But I would be surprised if the large and politically active (and connected) Google Monster isn't working behind the scenes on this one.

[Asher]

Apple's evil kick continues: Tries to get a gag order on a girl whose iPod exploded:

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/personal_tech/article6736587.ece

[-Jrabbit]

How the hell does an iPod explode???? (Sorry, can't be asked to do the research.)

[-Jrabbit]

Never mind, I checked. Bad Li-ons again. But there's a big difference between overheating and exploding. Weird.

More a case of lawyers being lawyers than a corporation being evil IMO. But the PR Dept. must be working overtime.