Apple Responds To Dictionary App Censorship - FCC Action Helping?

By now, you know that the FCC is looking at Apple, ATT, and Google for the reasons behind why 3rd party Google Voice apps were pulled and why Apple rejected Google's official app for Voice.

Now, there was more uproar by the tech bloggers when a dictionary app was rejected for censorship reason - as it first appeared.  Now, Apple has responded to that situation with an explanation.

It's not he-said-he-said that I'm talking about here.  The meat of this post is that we're even talking about Apple making any kind of explanation regarding its actions at all.  Perhaps, the FCC's letters to the three parties here has spurred Apple to be more open already.  

Think that if the FCC wasn't looking at ATT's iPhone exclusivity deal and app rejections that Apple would even care what bloggers and developers are talking about?  

Yeah, that's right.

Link:  Apple's Response

LTE: Some Things To Know

There has been talks about Apple going with Verizon with their next mobile device.  iProd.  iPad.  iTablet.

We don't really know with certainty that it's coming but with faith not that borderline on religion, I think it's coming.  Now, the word on the street is that Verizon is double-timing their effort to get LTE up and running.  Apple will then release the next revolutionary production on the LTE network.

Given ATT's performance and propensity to interfere with the app store dynamics, it stands to reason that Apple will have less reason to trust ATT's network and goodwill.

Having said that, there are some things we should know about LTE networks.  Right now, it cannot do SMS or voice.  No voice protocol has been decided on.  More at Onxo that is a must read.

Now, the ideal situation for future VW-Apple-device customers is that we can get on the LTE network without interference from Verizon.  Plus, it's purely data.  That means we don't need a voice plan.  Pay a montly free for data only Buffet style - meaning it's all you can eat.

For voice, users will be responsible for their own VOIP solution.  Be it Skype or Google Voice.  My guess is that Apple is working on something (more on that tomorrow).

Source:  Onxo

iPhone Issues: What Issues? Work Great For Me

"What iPhone issues?  Works fine for me" is the general response I get when i talk to the folks around me about app rejections and Apple's draconian app policies.  They loves their iPhone 3GS's and take every opportunity to brandish it.

And come to think of it, why would they care?  99% of the folks out there don't care that ATT, through Apple, rejected the Google Voice app or that Slingplayer only works through Wi-Fi.  The iPhone serves their needs and to them, that ought to be the headline.  

Nor do they care that Apple has rejected apps for anti-competitive reasons.  The iPhone works.  Period.  Gaming?  Tons of them. Facebook.  Yup.  Browsing the Web.  Piece of cake.  Looking for a restaurant or ATM.  Couldn't be easier.

More often than not, it's ATT's spotty network they bitch about.  Would they recommend the iPhones to their friends and family?  In a heart's beat.  Would they continue to stick with their iPhone when their contracts are up?  Sure.  Though they hope by then, the iPhone would be available on other carriers.  

But Apple "rejected" GV apps, I would come back to the issue that irks me.  Then I just get a blank stare.  Like I'm that crazy guy on the street corner yelling about the end of the world.  

Oh, my poor poor friends who don't know what's really going on...

If Apple Developed Search

With Google CEO's leaving Apple's board of directors and the many posts now about it and a growing call or speculation about a new Silicon Valley rivalry between Apple and Google, it stands be believe that Apple will eventually launch a salvo or two at Mountain View.

And should that happen, it'll be interesting to watch.  Very very interesting.  Two giants separated by less than 10 miles (according to Yahoo Maps - trying to stay neutral in this battle, avoiding using Google Maps).  

One potential area where Apple can really shine is in the area of search, and maybe even hurt Google a bit.  If Microsoft can get Bing working after all these years trials and errors, Apple's years of software and Spotlight development experience can come up with a viable search product and maybe shake things up in the search market.

At least that is also what one ZDNet post is thinking as well.  I've long wondered about this ever since Android came on the scene.  We all know Apple isn't going to be very happy with Google's move into the mobile OS market, much less so that Chrome OS will now compete with Apple's main computer hardware and software business.  

At the same time, though not widely mentioned, is that Apple is always cooking something deep within its headquarters including its own search engine.  And more than likely, search was given a priority since competitive winds from Google got stronger and stronger.

One small drawback is that Google pays Apple to be the default search engine in Safari.  Well, perhaps in the short-term during the transition from Google Search to Apple Search, that might be an issue.  But also keep in mind that Apple might be able to charge advertisers a higher rate given that Apple users generally come from higher income brackets of our society (unforunately, not in my household).

30 million users with a potential for another 50-100 million iPhone and iPod Touch users in the world, that's quite a bit of searches and ad revenues.  Apple's search will be about results and a specific group of users, it won't need to worry about volume.  And with a savy computing market, Apple can potentially rip away from Bing and Google anywhere from 10-15% of the search market while at the same time command a premium in advertising dollars.

So, would you abandon your favorite search engine just because you're an Apple mobile warrior or Mac user?  Well, I'll certainly be very excited and definitely give it a go.  But Apple will have to get Apple Search right from day one.  

Personally, I can see myself still using Google quite a bit unless Apple Search really blows it away and I just don't see that happening.  I have nothing against Google.  I'm quite upset about Google Voice app rejection by ATT.  I've got a G1 and have learn to tolerate its rough edges.  

Overall, Apple has the best hardware-software combo.  And with the right search, watching, Redmond and Mountain View.

Post mentioned:  ZDNet

GV Is A Problem for iPhone, Not A Threat (Yet)

Google Voice is a problem on two fronts for Apple but it's not a threat.  

First, I've been using Google Voice on my G1 and I'm loving it.  If ATT folds under the pressure I'm hoping the FCC is bringing to bare, I'll love it even more on the iPhone.  So what if I'm using GV on the iPhone?  I will still love the huge app stores, the games, MobileMe integration (which I don't get on the G1), and other iPhone specific functions.

Second, GV serves to compliment MobileMe because let's face it, Apple needs to add more features to MobileMe.  Free SMS would be great.  Chatting would be even more awesome.

So, it's not a threat but GV creates problems for Apple.  One, bad publicity.  If you're aware of Apple's rejection of GV app, then you know what I'm talking about.

The other problem is that it highlights how behind the curve Apple is when it comes to cloud computing.  And it's very very far behind.  It's even behind Microsoft.  That's how bad things are for Cupertino in this specific mobile battle.

Right now, it's not a big problem because very few folks will actually leave the iPhone because they want access to a GV app.  In all likelihood, folks will abandon their iPhones on principle stemming from the GV app rejection.

But 2-3 years from now, Apple's minor GV problem today could become a huge one if it doesn't get going with a comprehensive cloud, VOIP, and other mobile agendas.

Apple Crossed The Line With Google Voice Apps And Will Continue To Do So

More and more, I believe Apple's dealings with apps that enable iPhone users to use Google Voice has some things to do with ATT but also something to do with some bad blood created by the threat Android is increasingly becoming to the iPhone and Chome OS' challenge to the status quo in the OS market.

Caught in the middle are developers.

Macworld posted an article about just this matter.  Kevin Duerr in his blog vented his anger over how Apple had treated his app first by pulling it from the app store, then refusing to offer him an explanation for the action, and creating a refund nightmare for him.

And he's right.  The refund was not due to a flaw in the app but Apple's unexplainable reason for pulling it from the app store.  And some users do want their money back since Duerr will no longer be able to provide support and updates.

The app, VoiceCentral had gone on sale in April and it was only when apps for the Blackberries and Android phones became available did Apple started acting this way.  Oh, yeah, Apple also rejected Google's official Google Voice app.

Duerr, like everyone else, believes ATT is to blame here.  ATT simply doesn't have to capacity to handle all the iPhones in the market.  For the most part, I have to agree but Apple cannot be happy with Android and Chrome OS as competition.

I'm sure Apple had a message to send Google as well.  Maybe.  I don't know with any certainty.  There are a lot of theories flying around the Internet.

Apps are either rejected for indecency or for duplicating an existing function on the iPhone.  Frankly, I don't see anything that VoiceCentral or Google Voice app has done to duplicate iPhone functions that existing apps haven't already done.

Let's examine it a bit here with some app examples.

• Skype.  Okay.  It makes calls over Wi-Fi but it duplicates the iPhone's telephony function.
• Fring.  Same as Skype.
• Yahoo Messenger.  AIM.  Other IM applications.  The iPhone doesn't have an IM app but it does have a SMS application.  If users are sending instant messages instead of SMS, when ATT is out of a revenue stream.

Those quickly comes to mind.  But there are others.  Suppose Apple starts streaming music through the iPod.  What happens to all the radio apps?  Right now, everyone is watching one app in particular.

Spotify.  Since it started streaming music to users (including myself), it has been considered as a competitor to iTunes.  Everyone is watching and waiting to see what Apple will do.  Now, some bloggers believe, given the bad press now with GV apps, Apple will think twice about a rejection.  Folks, if you believe that, you don't know Steve Jobs.  

However, for you mobile warriors with a legal background, what do you think?  A few more examples of rejections due to apps duplicating functions on the iPhone, can an anti-trust case be made?

This is not a subject I like writing about but Apple is wrong here.  I had hoped that Apple will evolve more liberally with app store policies over time.  It's been more than a year.  The app store has been wildly successful.  Millions of iPhones sold.  Still, nothing has changed.

Source:  Macworld, Duerr's Blog

Note:  If you want a Spotify account, which I highly recommend, visit Onxo for instructions.  It is not yet widely available.

Another Note:  Jailbreak, jailbreak, jailbreak, baby!

iTablet:

So, we don't know with certainty that the iTablet will be forthcoming but by all indications, it is.  If not for the sake of satisfying the mobile market, it is an evolutionary step in mobile computing.

But Macinstein doesn't think the iTablet would be a great mobile device at all.  It even goes as far as to say it's ruse created by Apple to make its competitors like Dell waste millions in research and development on something that will not work.

Well, if this tablet was coming from Dell, Acer, or Asus, I would agree.  But hey, this is Steve Jobs we're talking about.  Let's not forget that.  The iTablet will be coming from the folks who brought us OS X, Macbooks, iPods, and the iPhones.

For all the shortcoming mentioned in the post, it makes sense that Apple's brilliant designers and engineers would have thought everything through and patent the heck out of it to make sure it works. If it doesn't, trust me on this, Apple will not come out with a tablet.

So, no, it wouldn't just be a double-sized iPod Touch as simply twice the price.  Okay, maybe twice the price of an iPod Touch is plausible but it'll be so much more.  There is a lot we don't know about it.  As we get closer to the release date (which I firmly believe to be early 2010), there will be a lot of hype, rumors, and sleight of hands by multiple players, but I think at the end of the day, we'll be pretty happy that we mobile fans will have another Apple gear in our mobile arsenal.

Let's just hope Apple doesn't really call it the "iTablet".

Source:  Macenstein