This story appeared on Network World at
http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2009/082409bradner.html
Apple
App Store and Google Voice: move may not be as capricious as it seemed
Apple bows to AT&T paranoia over VoIP and Google may be
embarrassed over Google Voice application for iPhone
'Net Insider By Scott Bradner ,
Network World , 08/24/2009
A few weeks ago I wrote about
the first round of fallout that resulted from the press reports that Apple had
rejected a Google Voice application after Google tried to add it to the App
Store.
The
next round in this likely long process has just started. Apple, AT&T and
Google have sent the FCC answers to its questions. If you just read the first
two of these responses you would get images: an Apple that has strong ideas on
what is Right and is buried in poorly written applications, and a timorous
AT&T afraid of the fragility of its network and of its business. Reading
the third one paints a picture of Google as a kid not wanting to share its
report card with adults.
The
letters do make it clear that some of the conspiracy theories being bandied
about on the Internet over the last few weeks that had AT&T telling a
subservient Apple to block Google Voice were off the mark -- at least in this
case. Both the AT&T letter and the Apple letter say that AT&T
was not involved in Apple's review of the Google Voice application.
The two letters also say that AT&T has provided Apple with some
rules about what kind of applications cannot be approved. For example, AT&T
wants to block some types of applications that use the AT&T cellular
network, including voice over IP (VoIP) applications, and applications that use
a lot of bandwidth, such as TV redirectors. Note that neither of these apply to
Google Voice.
AT&T
cries poverty about these applications -- poverty of network resources for the
high-bandwidth applications and poverty of business model for the VoIP applications.
I guess AT&T does not think it can get by just selling you data
connectivity; it also needs to rip you off for minutes of voice airtime and SMS
messages in order to get by.
Apple
said that it spends a lot of time being a nanny to the App Store -- testing and
rejecting buggy or naughty applications. Apparently, Apple thinks it will
reflect poorly on the company if you download an application written by some
amateur programmer and it crashes.
In
its letter Apple said that it did not actually rejected Google Voice --- it was
just in a long, thoughtful, review process. Long enough that it feels like
rejection to some people. It also said that it had a problem with Google
Voice's user interface, since it moved things around compared to the Apple user
interface. Some commentators have said that is just a ruse that Apple is using
to keep Google at bay.
But,
from the very start, Apple has been very concerned with the consistency of user
interfaces. Apple published "Inside
Macintosh" in 1985 -- the first part, more than 550
pages, of the 1,200 page document is about the Macintosh user interface. In
that book Apple said:
"The
third and most important principle is consistency. Since Macintosh users
usually divide their time among several applications, they would be confused
and irritated if they had to learn a completely new interface for each
application."
"Inside
Macintosh" is why Mac applications were so easy to learn after you
understood the first one -- quite unlike early Windows applications.
Google
is the only one of the responders who asked the FCC to keep part of its letter secret. Google does not
want to tell us what Apple told it about rejecting Google Voice. Maybe Apple
did not have nice things to say about the application.
If
Apple is to be believed, Google just needs to tweak Google Voioce so that its
user interface is more Apple-like and -- poof -- it will show up in the App
Store. Even if that were to happen, I predict that this is not the last round
in this story.
Disclaimer:
Harvard folk spend more time predicting the past than the future and I have not
heard any University view on Apple's rejectionitis so the above prediction is
mine.
All contents copyright 1995-2009 Network World, Inc. http://www.networkworld.com