Why did Apple okay RingCentral?
Here's a question the FCC neglected to ask Apple (AAPL) in its inquiry into why the company rejected — or as Apple prefers, declined to approve — Google Voice:
Why has a free app that does essentially the same thing — and would seem to raise the same red flags for Apple — been sitting on the App Store for nearly 10 months?
The app is called RingCentral Mobile and not only does it perform most of the same functions as the Google (GOOG) app that's making all the headlines — universal telephone number, voicemail, dial-by-name directory, click-to-call, call forwarding, answering rules, call screening, music on hold, etc. — it was the template on which both Google Voice, and its predecessor, GrandCentral, were built.
Moreover, unlike Google Voice, RingCentral uses VoIP — the voice-over-Internet protocol that causes AT&T (T) such problems. But like Google Voice, it "alter[s] 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 … and voicemail" — to quote from the explanation Apple gave the FCC for why it didn't okay Google Voice.
There are differences. Google Voice is free — or would have been if it had been approved. RingCentral Mobile is free, but it requires a subscription to RingCentral, a virtual PBX service that costs $9.99 a month for individuals and very small businesses and $99 a month for larger enterprises.
And unlike Google Voice, which is still in beta and available by invitation only, RingCentral is a profitable 10-year old company with nearly 90,000 paying customers and the backing of Sequoia Capital and Khosla Ventures.
More to the point, according to a source close to the company, RingCentral has signed a strategic agreement with AT&T to do "something much bigger and cooler that they will not discuss openly because of intense competition."
Could this have something to do with Apple's objections to Google Voice?
Of course, RingCentral does not pose the same existential threat to Apple that Google does. To quote the graph in Michael Arrington analysis in TechCrunch Friday that rings most true:
"Multiple sources at Google tell us that in informal discussions with Apple over the last few months Apple expressed dismay at the number of core iPhone apps that are powered by Google. Search, maps, YouTube, and other key popular apps are powered by Google. Other than the browser, Apple has little else to call its own other than the core phone, contacts and calendar features. The Google Voice App takes things one step further, by giving users an incentive to abandon their iPhone phone number and use their Google Voice phone number instead (transcription of voicemails is reason enough alone). Apple was afraid, say our sources, that Google was gaining too much power on the iPhone, and that’s why they rejected the application."
These are some of the issues the FCC might consider when it meets Thursday to vote on whether to proceed with a full-scale investigation.
See also:
I found this post while Googling for "ringcentral blackberry app' because I was hoping to find an app for my blackberry similar in functionality to the iphone app.
I'm surprised at the comments about RC service and reliability. I've got the 4 line plan and have been using it for almost a year now and have only had one issue with an outage and that lasted about 15 mins afaik.
We're on the phone all day and have not had any issues with lag or quality concerns. I find the customer service pretty good actually. They are based in the Philippines, and at least they can speak English! I've chatted with them many time getting my service setup the way i needed it to be and they were always very helpful and knowledgeable.
In all, I'm very happy with my decision to leave POTS and go VoIP with RC.
Now if they would just make a blackberry app…
The ring central user agreement prohibits calling from the Ipod and Ipod touch, even though the dialpad operates on those devices. Something smells foul, with this arrangement.
Google Voice can be signed up by anyone without any verification of ID and could be used for illegal and potentially dangerous activity. While ring central needs a credit card payment with address for verification. So if illegal activity is present then it can be traced easier by Law enforcement.
I canceled ring central after too many occurrences of the service being down, really bad customer service that is outsourced overseas and unfair billing practices.
Why pay for ringcentral when you can get most of it for FREE with Google Voice?
RingCentral is known for totally ignoring customers' complaints, sending blame to third world offshore sites and blowing off it's homegrown talent. It's a shame, but This is just a pattern that's happening.
I'm sure AT&T isn't really all that interested in RingCentral, which seems to be losing a great deal of market share due to downsizing it's advertising. It's a shame, but I've seen great talent leave the company, while watching incompetent management screw people who had talent as those talented people started to rise on the coporate ladder. Just watch, I suspect gangsters will pay
This is really a no-win scenario for Apple. Even if they find something that legitimizes their "rejection" of the Google Voice app (you know they want to, even if they haven't officially yet) and if this RingCentral app proves to be a letdown for whatever reason, Google has said it will be releasing a web page that does the exact same thing, which Apple will have no say over, according to http://www.newsy.com/videos/defending_the_app_store
"ex ped: It's also my understanding that Google Voice is not a VoIP service, and I've tried to make that clearer in the text. But wouldn't that make it more likely to be approved, not less?"
Just wanted to give you my comment on your question. Because the app takes control of the core service of dialing the phone I would say it has less chance of approval without more investigation. Now that said, I think the company that should be concerned is T-Mobile or others that have unlimited calls to specific numbers. I use GV and just set the GV outbound number as one of my 5 favs now unlimited calls to anyone anytime!
This is all over blown. Would Motorola and Verizon allow someone to replace a Motorola cell phone interface? Not likely at all!!!
I can't let this slide: "Other than the browser, Apple has little else to call its own other than the core phone, contacts and calendar features."
Uhm, Mail, iTunes, and the OS, just to name little else.
Are you and Arrington suggesting Apple is jealous? And the argument is based on that?
Conspiracy theory:
I think one reason is because Google will probably add data miners (ehem spyware)to the phone just like what they did to firefox.
The idea that Apple and Google are competitors makes no sense. Both are tiny islands surrounded by a ruthless enemy that controls 95% of the worlds PC's. This enemy also controls the tech media through advertising and other means. It also has many allies and agents in the government, and seems to be able to force Federal investigations of competitors.
Why would Apple and Google clash when both know they are marked for eventual elimination by Microsoft?
It's because RingCentral's service is so horrible it isn't a remote threat to Apple or AT&T. Dropped calls, outages, massive lag, and amazingly bad service reps combine to make it a non-viable alternative.
Even a little more intriguing is the AT&T Mobile Receptionist which gives you a free 800-number plus 60 free minutes to that business number. Not as complicated as Google Voice and likely a direct competitor.
The FCC lacks the authority to force Apple to include Google Voice in the App Store so Apple's response can be seen as a PR exercise.
Comcast has appealed the ruling on net neutrality because it believes the FCC's order falls outside its “statutorily mandated responsibilities.” Oral arguments in the case start next year and perhaps the courts will set some limits on the FCC. More background on this side of the story in my article 'FCC Investigation of Apple's Google Voice Rejection Could Become a Political Mess http://lowendmac.com/nash/09tn/fcc-investigation.html
Neither RingCentral or Google Voice are VoIP apps.
RingCentral uses regular telephone service to connect calls – in much the same way as Google Voice does. However, voicemail and received faxes are handled from within the application.
You can use 3rd party VoIP clients like iSip on the iPhone to connect to your RingCentral service however.
ex ped: From RingCentral's website:
"DigitalLine™ VoIP service upgrades your RingCentral virtual phone system into a complete business communication solution, allowing you to place and receive calls using your broadband Internet connection.
DigitalLine offers three economical plans to suit your calling needs. Whether you call a lot or just occasionally, DigitalLine will save you money over a traditional phone service…"
@Don – pretty sure that the author knows that GV is *not* a VOIP application – and that is precisely the point. Unlike GV – which still would make use of a user's AT&T airtime minutes – a VOIP application would bypass it with their (quasi) unlimited data plan. Ring Central is more of a threat to AT&T's revenue stream than GV is.
PED – You're looking for reason where there is none.
The lost revenue from SMS alone is enough for AT&T to pressure Apple into "studying" this app instead of approving it.
Apple has little to lose by allowing this app. Anyone seeking the truth would think AT&T and Apple are not being honest about what really happened here: That AT&T rejected it.
There are all kinds of holes in Apple's story, like their unease with Contacts being copied to Google. If that's the case why is there an API that allows my contacts to sync with Google via ActiveSync? Why is Apple able to sleep at night when my photos can be sent from the iPhone to Flickr?
The points Apple makes in its letter are insulting to iPhone users. They appear designed to confuse investigators with wordplay.
Apple drives home the point that a GV app would "replace" the phone functions of the iPhone – when we all know it would do nothing of the kind. Anyone who dials my iPhone number instead of my GV number still gets my Visual Voicemail. But shouldn't that be MY choice and not Apple's?
I won't waste my time dissecting this letter because it's an arrogant response designed to stall and distract from the real issue. If I were the feds I'd fine them for issuing a frivolous response and wasting everyone's time.
I believe if you did your research and presented a real story you would be telling your readers that Google Voice is not a VOIP service! That's the major difference, I am using it on a blackberry and it dials your phone via a fixed phone number to make the call. That is not VOIP, it is not using IP services to do its work. MAYBE this is why it has not been approved yet? Because it controls your phone and actually places a call via your ATT service? It is amazing how everyone puts the spin on Apple and Google. Including the FCC and the Press.
ex ped: It's also my understanding that Google Voice is not a VoIP service, and I've tried to make that clearer in the text. But wouldn't that make it more likely to be approved, not less?
So, you hear the sond of the nails while Apple is ramping the mirror.
ex ped: I have an image in my mind, but I don't know what it means. Maybe the meaning was lost in translation.
The author did not do any fact checking. The RingCentral app does not use VoIP protocols from the iPhone. It is very different from the Skype application and Googles. The app is basically just a fancy ring back service. It connects to the Ring Central servers. Tells it to call the address book contact or number you dialed. Then the service calls you back on your iPhone. It also lets you send your choice of outgoing caller ID so it looks like you are calling from your main listed number. I have had the service without any problems for months. Most people do not realize that they need to tweak firewall settings so that required protocols are passed. So that would impact your service quality.