Bad Apple?

I Have a simple question on this. Why is the FCC spear-heading this investigation and not the SEC? Yes, the FCC rules communication, but isn't this more of an anti-trust issue? This would be the same as Apple denying a Zune application for the Mac.

Jon Fortt

Sorry if I'm the one to finally bust your bubble

Not a pretty chore but appears somebody needs to do it
.

How did you get to be a "Senior Tech Writer" ?

You point at Google Voice App, an Internet Social Website like MySpace, or the Android OS

And use the word "platform" ?

Say What ?
.

Sorry again, but you got some serious catchin' up to do

Musta missed that day at Tech Writer's School

Ask your Colleagues about … Software, Hardware, and what is a Platform

Imagine some of them can be of Service
.

Good Luck, and again … sorry if I was the one, hope at least gentle in the process

.

-30-

You used the title "Bad Apple" because it's also an expression that refers to a rotting fruit. So clever! And only used a billion times before by the business press. Now here's an idea – next time use a pun about a "rotting core" if the news is bad, or "polishing the apple" if the news is good. That'll give everyone a huge chuckle!

I just don't get Apple man! If they were trying to do "good" they would be open, transparent and FREE. Imagine working with Google to make everything seamless in the future. Especially the GV idea is going to change the world and if Apple is scared they should be. But they can't just keep denying it because they will be left behind very soon. If you buy a product from Apple, you cant even use it the way you want. Remember when you DL a song from iTunes, copied it to another computer that you owned and it wouldn't work?? Apple had DRM codec that would not allow it to play after YOU BOUGHT IT! What happens if you format your HDD and copy them back on? Doesn't work! The new Ipod shuffle headphones have a DRM chip in it so third-party headphone won't work without it! Apple locks its customers in, its against the LAW! I can't think of another company that forces its customers to use their products a cretin way. Once I buy it, I should be allowed to do anything I like, THIS IS AMERICA! Censoring APP for language! You must be kidding, If i want to curse I'M ALLOWED TO, again THIS IS AMERICA! Steve Jobs, you will regret you and your monkeys decisions. I am glad i found this article, you the man!

Good article. I am an Apple supporter and I hope that their decision to reject Google Voice is mainly due to ATT; otherwise, I think they definitely have gone too far this time.

The reason to reject Google Voice because it duplicates existing iPhone function is ridiculous because if the users also believe it to be the case and found their interface more cumbersome to use, then no one will be downloading the app at all. It would not have been a threat and Apple should not have to make that decision for their users.

If Apple think that Google Voice has better interface then their own and afraid more users will be using it than theirs, then they are definitely rejecting the app to stifle innovations and competitions in this space and FCC has every right to look in to this issue.

Never before in the history of mankind has it been easier to reach out to people all over the world. Online communitieslike MySpace, make meeting new friends with similar interests incredibly easy. MySpace is a great place to share tips, ideas and stories about the things you find most interesting. If you have a question about your hobby, you can easily find the answer through your network of members with similar interests.

James

The FCC is involved because the iPhone is a phone, and as such is regulated by the FCC. If we had "open cell" here, where your phone and your carrier are separate this would not be a problem, because some carrier would allow a way to use the google phone app.

If Google Voice picks up as one of those "must have" apps, apple could be forced by market forces to allow it. If you are a stock holder and you care more about this then ca$h…write Apple and tell them you will sell you stock unless they change. If enough people did this it could make a difference.

In the end Apple can always argue that Google Voice on the phone is available via the web browser. Not easy to use but it works.

It is one thing for His Jobbness to be a control freak. The guy has proven his judgement, so it is probably a good thing for him to "control" decisions.

But Apple after Jobs is a different story. What happens when lessor beings take on the CONTROL!! culture, but when they lack the judgement to make it work?

I think we can already see where Apple is headed, and as the author of this blog points out, it isn't likely to end well.

You only need a few really bad judgements to make a whole lot of folks scratch their heads and wonder, and only a few more to make ourself despised. I think Napoleon would thump the table in agreement with this sentiment.

Forget this Google episode for a moment, and take a look at something that is not widely reported: Apple censoring the dictionary.

Haven't heard about that? Check out:

http://daringfireball.net/2009/08/ninjawords

What we have here is some clown at Apple deciding that Apple needs to censor the dictionary. Not a BAD dictionary, full of BAD words. Just a standard dictionary.

For those who want the summary of that link, it is this: Some guys developed an Application for the iPhone that allows the user to check an online dictionary for words. But Apple decided that because this allowed the possibility of finding BAD WORDS, they couldn't allow it.

This is MADNESS. In fact, it is less than madness. This is really hard core stupid. A bright twelve year old in a middle school debate could demolish any conceivable argument in favour of such a move.

So how did it happen?

Well, this is what you get when a corporate culture of CONTROL!!! starts being exercised by yes men. This is the tragedy of people like His Jobbness. While they live, their judgement allows their dictatorial style of leadership to flourish. But when they pass on, as Jobs has been slowly but surely doing, they leave behind a collection of idiot sycophants who were expert at saying yes, and utterly incapable of making good judgements from first principles.

This sort of decision, to ban a common dictionary on the basis that it contains DANGEROUS WORDS, this sort of thing is not a "mistake". It is calculated stupidity. It is a sign of leadership that is unfit for its purpose.

The developer community is seeing more and more of this sort of thing. The public don't see so much, because they are not exposed to the majority of management decisions at Apple. The public only sees the press release, which has generally been checked by someone with good judgement (Jobs).

But those of us who are regularly exposed to the middle management of Apple are increasingly driven to despair by the mind blowing stupidity of the people Apple has promoted to positions of authority. I can only mean one thing: The bad people are rising to the top, and the good people are being pushed aside.

Apple is indeed turning rotten. If you had to take a byte of the thing on a daily basis, you'd know.

"And Apple has done nothing illegal"

Really? Because courts in both the US and EU found that Microsoft had acted illegally in forcing IE browser on their users via pre-install, and they didn't "ban" Firefox or Opera or even Safari from being installable on their OS.

Apple has done far worse here, and the measure of the illegal activity in terms of anti-trust legislation revolves around whether Apple forbids certain apps on its platform because they pose an actual threat to their business model or their security or whether the action is simply because the apps are from a competitor seeking to cut into their marketshare.

The particularly damning thing for Apple is that in fact they DO allow some other apps which do almost exactly the same thing as GV. Namely RingCentral. While all these other GV API developers were getting bans, RingCentral keeps on trucking. Sure looks like Apple is making their decisions more on the basis of stifling competition rather than actually upholding their policy on "redundant functionality" to me.

And yes, by current precedent, refusing to allow Opera and Firefox into the app store is in fact illegal. If it's illegal for Microsoft under the same circumstances, it's also illegal for Apple. They aren't special.

A lot of the commenters don't get it… comparing the iphone and the mac. Anyone can write any application for the mac… or produce peripherals to run on it. Completely open to 3rd party products. Users decide. 1984 ad. Think Different. Computer for the Rest of Us!

iPhone… Apple must approve everything. And if you think that has produced quality or if the things Apple rejects are harmful, you have obviously not been paying attention. A company in Pakistan spams the app store with over 800 $5 apps that just gather semi related stuff from the net… violates numerous trademarks and steals copyrighted material… every one approved. A experienced developer writes a karaoke player… Apple says it will "confuse users". Apple censors. Developers spend their time trying to figure out the unwritten rules (some are unfortunate enough to invest a wasted year in their app first). Most apps are low risk, low quality things because getting slots in the store with stuff sure not to get rejected (cuz it's just like 40 other similar apps) is how the game is played.

App review is going to supercharge the Android market. It might even revive WinMobile.

To those who think Google is a just a search engine, you're wrong. Look at how they've rolled out products. Read this: http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html
Google is trying to make the way we get data and use data more simple, faster, and friendlier. Google isn't making handsets, just software. Google's engineers are software engineers. To make an OS based off linux isn't something new to software engineers. Google is viable, and their adaptations to new technologies is what keeps them ahead. Bing is crap. I tried it and its at least twice as slow as google. Wouldn't use it on anything but T1. Crappiest interface, but what do you expect from Microsoft. And Apple fanboys, you wreck a good product. Apple makes great stuff, but they aren't always the best. Until the iPod Touch, I would've settled with a Palm or a generic mp3 player. Why? Because its pointless to waste money on something that "looks good". The iPod Touch was a little high in price for me, but there were no alternatives at the time for a better PDA. Android is quickly gaining traction, and its open source ways will eventually erode Apple's developer base, seeing as there are less hassle's and money issues when you develop for Android. Apple is not playing it smart and I think the author did a great job presenting a good argument. Props.

To Adam in Lake Charles LA who wrote:

" This is news to me since I see plenty of Microsft Zune MP3 players "

you must work at the zune manufacturing plant in china cuz I live in the heart of msft country–downtown seattle–and i've NEVER seen one in the wild. peace.

I had been reading a lot of tech blogs lately and most bloggers had been bashing Apple over the Appstore but then what do you expect from people who write for a living and need as many hits as possible and what better way to get them than writing an Apple bashing one – hits from both MSfanbois and Macaddicts.

I just want to add a grain of salt here to people saying Apple is too closed or faulting Apple for this decision.

First, in the mobile space there are much worse actors than Apple. Verizon for one dictates the software that runs on every device on it's network. It cripples devices to restrict features it does not like. So a Palm Treo on Sprint has more open features than the same model device on Verizon. That is comparable and arguably much worse than what Apple is doing here.

Second, while it's certainly not perfect, please please take some perspective when you criticize Apple for not having an open enough platform for Apps. In reality, Apple today has the only real, compelling platform for mobile apps. It's huge, it's successful and it's making money for developers. That is a pretty successful opening for developers, even if it is not perfect. It's not a closed system or a fortress like some suggest here.

Apple does have restrictions. Some of those restrictions are valid and good. Some of them seem to be wrong in protecting the platform against competition. That is not good. These cases are not working out very well and I hope Apple improves it's stance here.

In my opinion Apple should not have refused the Gvoice apps for the very reason stated here – that it turns people against it and creates more ill will than anything else.

At the end of the day, Gvoice, while cool for geeks, add complication to calling. It is not for everyone. Most people when they get an iPhone love its simplicity. It just works very well. While some may use Gvoice, the vast majority of people would rather do things in the simplest way possible. So even if Apple let Gvoice on the device, tech columnist and bloggers might use it but most other people will continue doing things in the way they have been. And there is nothing stopping ATT or Apple from rolling some of the Gvoice features into their core offerings, and that is their real point of leverage, the real battle ground for competition and no one would fault them, hell we would applaud them, for going head to head there.

This summer it blocked Palm (PALM) from linking its Pre smartphone into iTunes.

You have to love it when "journalists" distort the truth in order to support a point they are trying to make. Sigh… Apple isn't blocking anyone from syncing their device with the iTunes. The database is readily available for anyone to sync with it and there are several commercial options for other devices which perform that function. Apple rightly doesn't allow other vendors to freely use Apple's code for their own benefit. If you're using the iTunes software as your sync tool, People will blame Apple if it doesn't work properly. If Palm weren't so lazy, they'd write their own synch tool to work with the iTunes database as others have.

As for the rest of the article, this is just silly. On one hand, you acknowledge that Apple makes great products because it can control the entire experience form beginning to end. Then, you go on to chastise Apple for not being open enough. Well, which is it? Do you want great products or do you want open systems? Sometimes, these two are mutually exclusive.

@ Nick from Houston

For someone who talks about not saying things you don't know referring to the xbox 360 as "dead" is a horrid mistake.

I own every system that is currently available (and many older ones). That is I own a Wii, an xbox 360, and a Playstation 3. I know gaming, and I spend a lot of time watching the companies and what they do. Yea the Wii has been the explosive take over product, the 360 has been and still is 2nd in the total units sold. While this could be changing as the PS3 gets more and more games coming out for it along with price drops.

The only thing that i feel you could be referring to is the drop in sales in the video game industry. Yea 360 sales are a lot lower than they were even last summer, but somehow i feel like if people are pinching pennies these days the first thing on their list isn't to drop $150 minimum (and thats just for the system forget the other 100's of dollars you could spend on games and accessories) on a video game system. And if you pay attention PS3 sales are down and even sales of the Wii are down a lot. Calling the 360 dead is just completely false and shows no attention to the market detail.

I think the apple fan(atics) are saying it best. Jobs is a control freak, always has been, always will. If you don't like that, buy another – any other – product, and you will be much much happier.

John said:
"Apple OSes maybe UNIX based, but they are not open source. Don’t let the marketing fool you."

You know not of what you speak. Here are the 200+ open source projects that are part of Mac OS X:

http://www.apple.com/opensource/

But those are what they use. Apple also sponsors more than half a dozen project of their own, including Darwin, WebKit, and Bonjour:

http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html

Do they have proprietary parts related to these technologies? You bet. But so does every other for-profit company involved in open source…

It's called the modern computing component architecture, and it's a design pattern that allows clear separation of computing services and features to improve reuse, robustness in the face of change, and distribution of development costs. Apple is a positive player in this space, just as much as Google or any other open source "darling".

First xbox 360 is dead. And yes ms hordes over thier is and yes they were forced to allow mcafee/norton run. The article makes sense and non developers comment shows how little you understand the attraction of app stores. iPhone control is slowly dying and you can bet google will snatch it up next year.

And IE is not a real browser. It's a tool to locate a real browser. Don't pretend like you in any related with the development community.

@ Adam: "How Apple can take what could be absolutely wonderful hardware and hamstring it with such poor software, support, and user interface is beyond me"

It certainly is beyond you! A comment like that makes it patently clear that you've never used Apple's "wonderful hardware" or the software made for it.

Oh, well–at least your assessment of the hardware is correct…

….APPLE, MICROSOFT, pretty much the same these days. Especially in the way that BOTH try to control every fecking aspect of their hardware, software, and even what we do with it! (though easily hacked).
They try and make things completely incompatible, don't let me take songs of my ipod?? Pointless, when i can download something in 1 minute to allow me to do this…

Both shall soon perish! LINUX FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!! ESPECIALLY UBUNTU!!

Mark said:
"When did you EVER think the iPhone was an Open platform??? Don’t you remember all those stories about the 1.0 release and no 3rd party applications at all! Or the complaints about the 'Apple Store' being the Only distribution platform. Then there is the $99 cost to be a developer, even casual."

Okay, last one first: it costs $99 to get a license to distribute on the iTunes store – the development tools and resources are free (alas, training will cost you – but is that any different from any other technology?). How could this be considered a problem? Apple is providing the developer access to a huge marketplace, hosting, distribution, and sales management. This should be free?!??! To developers who are trying to make money? And why the distinction on "casual"? You think it would be a good idea for Apple to introduce some bureaucracy to "certify" someone into that class of "amateur" so that they can avoid this charge? You don't think that adds cost to everyone and will be rife with abuse? Unnecessary. You can tinker all you want for free. If you want to distribute it, you pay – simple.

Now, for the 1.0 release, how on Earth can you complain about platform evolution?!??! Sure, there were no 3rd party apps, but not because of some policy or "evil" business plan. It was because the AppStore and SDK were simply not ready. It's all about ease of use for Apple, and to the best of their ability, they don't foist "rush jobs" out into the market. If they launched a half-arsed AppStore with 1.0 that tanked and didn't have developer support, how do you think they'd be faring now?

And there were 3rd party "apps" – they were web apps using, oh, what was it? That's right, WebKit. The open source technology that Apple helped build, and, what's that? Oh, right – Google built the Chrome browser using it, and it's in Android, and will probably be in Chrome OS, too.

Now, these web apps are less favored today over native apps, but that is understandable. Especially for iPod Touch users who don't have constant access to a network.

Finally, I don't know about complaints of a single distribution method for iPhone OS apps. But I can say as a user, it is immeasurably valuable to me to have a simple means to search, purchase, and install applications. Not to mention the push notifications of new versions for apps I've already installed.

Adding alternative "stores" would completely crush this ideal customer experience. And I for one do not want to give that up…

Let the "jail breakers" install whatever they want on their devices from whatever sources (can you say, "hello, Trojan virus and malware"?). For the vast majority of us, the AppStore is the (nearly) perfect choice. (It still needs some help with organization…)

Apple promotes itself as open and fresh, but it's even more "1984" (Remember the first Mac commercial?) than Microsoft and IBM in its day.

You can see the true side of Apple when you look throughout its product line. Everything is Apple proprietary and Apple platforms are about as "closed source" as you can get.

Apple OSes maybe UNIX based, but they are not open source. Don't let the marketing fool you.

Really? Microsoft is strictly a software company. This is news to me since I see plenty of Microsft Zune MP3 players and tons of XBOX 360's all over the place. Take off the rose colored Apple fanboy glasses and stop treating Apple like the normal rules of business do not apply to them because they are "special".

The only thing special about them is how they must have some deal with satan worked out in order to be able to sell such large quantities of inferior products to the masses. Argue with me all you want about how "millions of people can't be wrong" or "Apple has the best products and blow the competition away" but I consider myself a discerning technophile and I am not impressed. How Apple can take what could be absolutely wonderful hardware and hamstring it with such poor software, support, and user interface is beyond me.

This article is way off base. The AppStore is much more like Facebook Applications than anything else. But even better, it offers developers easy entry into a huge marketplace with distribution and monetization all take care of for them.

And frankly, I never had a problem with the linkage between Windows and IE. Again, like Apple, making products integrate well to the delight of customers should always be a company's goal.

Preventing others from doing the same, though, is unfair competition. However, no company should be obligated to make their products integrate well with other companies' products.

It's all up to the marketplace – if customers demand that Company A allow Company B's product to work with Company A's product, then it will all get sorted at the cashier.

There's too much ideology with "open source". We're not talking about health care or education, here. Companies should be allowed to compete as aggressively as they wish – as long as it is legal.

And Apple has done nothing illegal. If customers stage a "revolt" because they can't get *some* Google products, then they are welcome to buy and Android phone. And there is no "right" to use iTunes on a Pre.

People make choices – so do companies. To try to paint Apple as the "Big Bad" because of this is a ridiculously over-simplification. And then to try to promote a "slippery slope" vision of a fascist Apple succumbing to Android over a handful of applications denied on the AppStore – all because it "happended" to MySpace is borderline insane/dangerous.

Besides, you assume that Google will be all beneficent on their "open" platform once they actually gain some market share. You don't think they would have taken down the "Shake the Baby" app?!??! You don't think they may make decisions to improve the profitability of themselves and their partners?

Boloney! Again – too much ideology in technology today. These are for-profit enterprises. Expect them to make moves that are in their own best interests. Normally that aligns with customer interests – but you have to remember that they align with the *majority* of customers. Some fringe users will be disappointed with Android – just as they are with Apple, or with any company offering products and services…

This is all noise. They can choose to include or exclude anybody or anything. If market pressures work then exclusions will encourage new market opportunities. Technology markets have proved incredibly flexible over time, just look at the giants of old and where they are now.

I own an HTC G1 (Google Android) phone, and would like to correct your view a bit:

1. competing voice over ip software

Example Skype – while there is a version on the iPhone that works as expected (free skype2skype calls) when connected to Wifi, the Android version on the Google phone forces you to use minutes. So in terms of competing voice over ip applications, the G1 android phone is even more closed than the iphone.

2. quality of applications – it is not just a matter of how many applications are there, but also about the quality of the software. Of course this is also a function of the underlying hardware capabilities, but in general the Android apps I find in the market for the G1 look a lot more clunky than anything the iphone has. And the best example for ridiculous software flaws is the mp3 player that comes with the G1:

It does not sort albums by artist+album but only by album name. What a mess – I bought two 'best of albums' from separate artists, but the mp3 player lists all songs together as if it was only one album.

Installing an alternative mp3 player from the market place did not solve the issue, so I presume its deeper in the software stack of the android platform.

I mentioned this to a friend of mine who works on QA for the android software platform, and his response was 'I wouldnt know, I dont use mp3s on my g1 phone'. Hello?!

So yes, I agree with you that we will see some interesting lawsuits in the future akin to when microsoft abused its monopoly power, but both apple and google are doing the exact same thing now and are targets alike, not just 'the bad apple'.

Michael Will

When background processes grind to the OS to a halt‚ or compromised access leads to identity theft‚ who will people be holding accountable? Apple.

Apple never gave the illusion that developers had access to all functions within the platform. Their scrutiny is what makes the iPhone an exceptional device.

So‚ yeah‚ 99% of the time‚ I'll defer to Apple in cases where the integrity of their iPhone experience compromises perceived openness of the platform. Their interests happen to coincide with mine.

I think the comparison of Apple to Microsoft is off base. MS is strictly a software company. They are partnered with companies that make the boxes. The name of the game is different with Apple, as they make their own boxes. They ultimately have all the rights in the world to decide what runs on them.

As for being "boxed in" by Apple. With the exception of tying you to AT&T, Apple products blow the competition out of the water. If there are superior products on the market they need to be listed as exceptions, not the rule. Most competitors are struggling to keep up. So I guess if you consider having the best products available to you being "boxed in" please don't use iTunes or anything else Apple offers.

Ask yoursef how "boxed in" you are when your PC goes to the blue screen of death… again.

Has any conclusion about Apple by Fortune ever been correct? After 20 years of telling its readers that Apple was going out of business now it manages to spin its undeniable success as having elements that will bring about its demise. I would think that being wrong about Apple would make people question Fortune's judgment in other areas, but they know their readers.

One thought. Perhaps apple is doing what it does since this business model worked in the past. If you recall, apple did at one point I think in the 1990s sell rights for their OS on the Macs, which flopped. That also was associated with poor financial performance from apple .
They rebounded with niche products and are doing well now.
So they are doing what they do best and I doubt they will open up their control since that was one reason that got them into trouble the last time.

We as consumers can choose to use or not use their products. There are enough products out there.
And I do have an Iphone and Ipod but will never use an IMac. My choice.

To me this has always been Apple's greatest weakness. It's honestly part of the reason IBM/M$ computers really took off over Apple computers back in the day when Apple clearly had a better product.

Todays computers are less reliant on applications thanks to the web so it's a bit more tolerable, but Apple still doesn't play nice with a lot of web apps either (cough cough flash cough). This is a very big annoyance for me an iphone user and developer. It's part of the reason i keep hoping a 2nd player can make it as big in the smart phone space.

First, Apple's path is right – if you keep the fort closed, you can always open it later, Google & OpenSource flag flyers want open but are UNWILLING TO PAY FOR ANYTHING and WILL TRADE UI/USAGE & EASE OF USE for open because they don't care – they figure they'll just write that part – that's why you have 299 flavors of Linux and designed by people who think green & pink are great colors … as many have commented below, they don't care about useability. 98% of consumers and users do and that's why we appreciate Apple – the few cannot fathom why anyone would pay more than $399 for a computer, why not just build it out of $89 worth of parts? That's their thinking – same reason I don't build a kit car. The real thing only please. I prefer professionals to build my professional equipment… so Apple's strategy is right – they have the option of opening or closing the fort – Google has has very little success at MONEY MAKING ventures outside of search …

You pay ton of money to own a iPhone, after that if you are OK to let Apple decide everything you do and should not do on iPhone then you must be a stupid fellow who parted with his hard earned money for a overpriced brick

Clearly you have never used an iPhone

When did you EVER think the iPhone was an Open platform??? Don't you remember all those stories about the 1.0 release and no 3rd party applications at all! Or the complaints about the "Apple Store" being the Only distribution platform. Then there is the $99 cost to be a developer, even casual.

Come on, don't you even read your own stories??

Give me a break. Seriously? The auto manufacturers have been building their cars with the same guidelines. Do we force GM or Ford to allow any type of stereo into their vehicles? No. And why not?

Manufacturers do not want crap products forced upon them. Apple is the same and doesn't want pieces of crap programs on their hardware. Apple builds and owns the hardware and software. They should have the right to decide what works best. It's always worked for them.

I feel so bad for the poor FCC. They should spend more time focusing on opening avenues for free speech for citizens and not corporations. Why are they upset? Apple is just following and protecting their bottom line and a contractual agreement they have with AT&T.

"But if you want Google Voice on your phone? Well, on Android, there’s an app for that."

Wait a minute! Isn't the title of this article "Bad Apple"? I thought that Apple had a monopoly, requiring the wrath of the government goons to come down on them to break the monopoly. But now you are admitting that there really IS competition?

This reporter is shocked, ladies and gentlemen. Shocked!

These people like being controled, feeling secure and even paying money for that.

When you remove controls, you get what we have in the economy. Utter chaos and collapse because everyone thinks they know what is best.

Regulation is a great thing across the board. It protects the majority. When you remove it, you see what happens.

Ok, I've got no problem with people voicing their minds…. If they know what they're talking about.

1 – If you don't know EXACTLY what entitles you for being slapped with a monopoly charge, shut up (that applies to 5 of the current replies).

2 – If you don't know anything about MARKETING (at at least a college level), shut up. Yes, that means if you didn't go to a 4 year (or more) university for BUSINESS, you have really got no understanding of what's going on. That's another 10 people who have posted.

I'm not saying which side I'm for (Apple vs Google). The only thing I'm saying is that 75% of the replies from this article have flaws in their statements from simple business/legal prospectives. If you don't know what you're saying, don't say it.

Rob,

For some people, excellence is important and no company in the high tech industries scratches that itch better than Apple. So, I'm not surprised that so many commentators here support Apple's position on this. Add me to the chorus. As far as I'm concerned, Apple's attention to detail and security are worth paying for.

Nice article. Apple is too closed.

The Apple fans should really calm down about this. Yes, we all get the fact that it is a really good product, one of the best. Their tight control of software and hardware components makes them great. But, you are highly ignorant in not realizing that Apple can (and probably will) get into serious legal problems for monopoly/anti-trust. And no, Steve Jobs talking in front of congress about how great his iphone is wont do any good when they are still breaking the law. If you want to write about how great their product is, do it somewhere else… the fact is that they cannot hide behind their product forever and this move will be something that hurts them later on.

Thanks for the article, it'll make a great "I told you so" piece in fewer years than I think people expect.

Market cap, product lines, profit margins… none of it means anything if you alienate your users.

And Apple freaks — chill out, you bum me out whenever I read about tech.

iTunes belongs to Apple Inc. Not Palm or Google, or anybody else. Apple put the effort into developing iTunes. They can do with it as they please. If yu'al don't like it, then go somewhere else. Or better yet, go spend the millions of $$$$ to develop another one that works like it…

Wow! I never use to read this stuff. It takes a skillful writer to keep my attention with all this detail about business tech, but you make it interesting to even a senior and novice like me. Great writing.

I think it's hilarious that people who would ram burning hot coals down the throat of every MS exec for doing something like requiring Microsoft approval of every single application before it could be run on Windows … have absolutely ZERO problem with Apple doing the same thing!

Sure, the GV app might duplicate some functions of existing Apple software on the device – BUT NOT ALL OF IT! Unless the iPhone OS can do with the independent app can, Apple should shut their traps and let the people who shelled out the big bucks for their little toy use the apps that MAKE THEM MORE PRODUCTIVE! Otherwise, these loyal users, feeling screwed over, will abandon their iPhoneys and find something else that "has an app for that."

If this doesn't get Apple up on monopoly/anti-competitive charges, the government bodies that oversee such things are failing all of us … miserably. (Not that I'm shocked by that either.)

Rob ,

For some people Apple is some kind of God, so don't be surprised that half of the posts are from Apple supporters. These people like being controled, feeling secure and even paying money for that.

I don’t want someone to restrict me from what I can do with my phone , my computer and my music player. I don’t care how good Apple is, I would never buy one of these devices.
By the way, the reason why Aple doesn’t want to open up its software is simple – MONEY
——-

LOL… you're restricted on your phone with your carrier and OS, I can't run iPhone OS or iPhone apps on my Microsoft Mobile or MS CE phone. You're restricted on your computer your OS's, you can't run Mac programs on Windows. You're either just trying to get a reaction or you're ignorant.

Interesting to note that every other response appears to be from an apple supporter. The article is not saying that apple is the antichrist, just that their control MIGHT be too tight. Apple makes great hardware, its high quality. Their software is excellent too. At times though, they are draconian in their EULA agreements. If they continue with a trend to prevent highly popular apps from being available on IPhones, its quite possible that someone else will come up with a product that will leapfrog Apple. Just because something isn't made by Apple does not automatically imply its not as good, which is what the Apple fanatics appear to be saying.

This is exactly why I am a non-customer of Apple. I use iTunes as little as possible, and won’t even consider an iPhone or iPod until they open up – the prices are bad enough, they have to box us in too?
—————-

Please keep buying and using Windows… it will keep the flys away from us Mac users (hackers/viruses).

The FCC allows companies like ATT to buy competition but is worried about an app on the iPhone??????????

They're pretending to work to justify their paycheck, nothing more.

I don't want someone to restrict me from what I can do with my phone , my computer and my music player. I don't care how good Apple is, I would never buy one of these devices.
By the way, the reason why Aple doesn't want to open up its software is simple – MONEY.

RE: Tom

Tom, boxing in is a good thing when it comes to products.

I'd rather have controls in place to make sure the product is supposed to work the way it's supposed to instead of letting every little engineer or app designer thinking they know better and messing it up (a.k.a. Windows OS, etc)

The problem isn't really whether you agree about Apple's tactics or not. By denying competition to Google, saying that its product is already packaged with that feature, it could be getting into a large legal issue. Does anyone remember a little company called Microsoft that got in trouble for doing the same thing not too long ago with MS Windows and Internet Explorer? Or more recently with talk of Google using its search engine revenue to spur free software systems? Like Apple or not, what they are doing may well be compromising legal boundaries.

This is exactly why I am a non-customer of Apple. I use iTunes as little as possible, and won't even consider an iPhone or iPod until they open up – the prices are bad enough, they have to box us in too?

i applaud all the commenters of this article. i think that its articles like this that keep apple share prices down. all these morons that think they should be running apple.
Thank god for steve jobs

en,
Apple is not little guy. check Market cap of AAPL & MSFT.

MS did learn its lessons from Netscape time, you can do what ever you want on PCs and WinMobile devices.

You pay ton of money to own a iPhone, after that if you are OK to let Apple decide everything you do and should not do on iPhone then you must be a stupid fellow who parted with his hard earned money for a overpriced brick

Not get into Microsoft's underwear? All the court cases against them for being a "monopoly", all the IE lawsuits, the media player lawsuits, the fines from the EU… Yeah, Microsoft is swimming in get out of jail free cards.

The MySpace comparison is not the best example. Does Microsoft or Apple prevent anyone from writing programs? No, but the Apple store dropped the horrid "Baby Shaker" app… is that not against free speech or something?

If a company can't control what goes in their store, for whatever reason who is to say that the Disney Stores won't be sued for not having Looney Tunes items?

To Chairman Julius (Caesar) of the FCC… go back to Washington.

It's their brand and products. Apple can do whatever they want and let them. It's why they are successful.

Also, comparing Myspace to Apple is highly hilarious. That's like comparing Apples (get it) to Coconuts. They aren't even close to being similar.

Apple is a company that MAKES GREAT PRODUCTS and those products are wanted by the masses due to 1) GREAT DESIGN 2) GREAT FUNCTIONALITY 3) GREAT REALIBILITY and last 4) CONTROLLING THEIR PRODUCTS IN THEIR VISION TO NOT LET OTHERS CORRUPT THEM.

People embraced Myspace because it was the latest fad, and then when another fad, Facebook, came along, people moved to that. And when another came along, Twitter, people moved to that. These social sites are nothing more then fads.

That is not what Apple is and to compare them is just idiotic.

You should compare Google to Yahoo and how Yahoo use to be king and how it lost control. The same thing is happening to Google. Bing is now on it's toes and teaming up with Yahoo only helps. Google also is getting into an area from being a search engine to producing a product…bad idea. They aren't Apple who have manufacturing, design experience, interface experience, etc. They are a search engine company. And now they are trying to make a phone? LOL. Stick with search engines and hope you can hold onto the marker longer, but just like Yahoo, you'll lose it.

Mark my words…Googles days are numbered…in 2-5 years, we'll be talking to them like they are Yahoo now.

Blah, Blah, Blah.. I have been a Mac user and own since 1989… I say that to put my bias right out front.. this nonsense about Google Voice and Apple hurting developers is an old story.. you can't have it both ways people.. you can't have a company that is fanatical about the details of all of it's products –> with the end result being the best products on the planet… and then get mad at them for doing what they do!! DUH!! The iphone is the best product for a reason… the Mac is the best computer for a reason… Apple has spoiled you thinking you can have it all… guess what? you can't

Don't ever quit your day job.

seriously.. apple is doing what any company would do to protect its business..apple seems to be the company people love to hate.. i agree with en.. jump on microsoft.. they were the apple of twenty years ago and nobody said boo as they, and the pc industry pounded apple into the ground.

Sorry, ok article but the author seems to think that Apple controls the universe and has ultimate say so in everything. (something many authors are writing about at the moment).

While not an expert in this specific matter, I have monitored Apple and its directions over the last year (good stock investing requires it) and found that usually Apple makes very good decisions that are based on reality not on crazy desires.

Will Apple come out with a netbook? Only if it makes sense to Apple.

Will Apple connect with Verizon? Only if…. and when it makes sense to Apple.

And just why is everyone trying to get into Apple's shorts… why not jump into Microsofts underware??? Well, I guess MS weilds too much political influence so lets just jump on the small guy. ????????

Just a thought.
en