Google Voice App Issue

  • Avatar

    Posted: 03 August 2009 09:05 AM #16

    Don’t forget that AT&T broke the law and eavesdropped on the public yet were given immunity when it came to light. They have friends in very high places so I don’t expect much to come of this.

         
  • Posted: 03 August 2009 09:14 AM #17

    I think it was their friends doing the eavesdropping, T provided a bench and table.

         
  • Posted: 03 August 2009 12:35 PM #18

    “Lots of people want an iPhone but won?t or can?t switch to AT&T.”

    To be blunt, tough noogies. If they WON"T, it’s their own fault. If they can’t, cry me a river.

    I want a Ferrari. I can’t buy that either. Should this country FORCE Ferrari to sell me something I can afford? No.

    Did the FCC force RIMM to open up their system to Mac users and provide them with support? No. I begged RIMM for four years running to support Mac users and was bluntly told NO. Repeatedly.

    The company had no interest in Mac users or the Mac platform. They were one platform only. Period. So where was the FCC then when Blackberries were dominating the smartphone market? Oh yeah, that’s right, Congress was doing everything in its power to support RIMM in their litigation in Canada so that they would not be shut down and the elected officials wouldn’t have to give up their precious crackberries. How soon we forget that they were ACTUALLY IN BED with RIMM.

    So you wonder where all this FCC pressure is coming from? Look no further than Capitol Hill.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 03 August 2009 01:12 PM #19

    Tiger - 03 August 2009 03:35 PM

    I want a Ferrari. I can’t buy that either. Should this country FORCE Ferrari to sell me something I can afford? No.

    There is a difference. Suppose you can afford a Ferrari, but you live in Slack Jaw Nevada, population 108,  which not only doesn’t have a Ferrari dealership, but it also doesn’t have a AT&T cell coverage. You can go to Reno or Las Vegas and buy both the car and an iPhone. You can drive your Ferrari around your town, but you can’t use the iPhone for calls. However, both the Ferrari and the iPhone are not necessities, they are luxuries so why should the Government get into the act.

    Signature

    “Works of art, in my opinion, are the only objects in the material universe to possess internal order, and that is why, though I don’t believe that only art matters, I do believe in Art for Art’s sake.” E. M. Forster

         
  • Posted: 03 August 2009 01:39 PM #20

    sleepytoo - 03 August 2009 10:37 AM

    Why the excitement over this?

    What Apple has delivered to the user with iPhone came at the price of a deal with the devil: users must get an affordable, unlimited, neutral mobile data pipe; Apple must get big subsidies, the carrier’s business grows in a saturated market, but Apple must protect Apple’s carrier partner’s existing revenue sources (voice and SMS). So yes, this is to protect AT&T’s revenues, whatever anyone says. It is also to protect Apple’s stated requirement to control the user experience of the core functionality of the device. Voice (including visual voicemail) and SMS are core functions. Apple won’t have email apps on the store either, but the mail app providers aren’t remotely rich enough to lobby Washington.

    In the long term voice will be subsumed into the internet, and SMS will presumably disappear. Apple is the one that finally moved us forward in this process by releasing the carriers’ myopic restraint on mobile data. The matching deal with the devil to protect voice revenues isn’t done yet, and it’s making Apple rich. That’s because Apple had the wits to see how it could be the triggering agent of inevitable change and could ride the resulting turmoil of change in a huge industry.

    There are two outcomes; the FCC accepts the situation, and Apple continues to make enhanced margins and control the user experience for voicemail, SMS etc, or the FCC rules that the App store must allow Google’s voice App. In that case the gloves are off, and Apple too can move in on the carriers’ voice revenues.

    On balance I see this as an almost deliberate sounding-out by Apple and Google in their long term quest for an open mobile internet with dumb pipe mobile data service provision. What makes people think Apple are ignorant, greedy, stupid and short sighted, just because this is their necessary tactical action at this stage in this multi-year contest? There are parts of the game Apple doesn’t control, and the FCC move is helping to define those parts, which in turn will allow Apple to move forward more confidently in a known environment.

    With all due respect to Artman I’d like to nominate Sleepy to replace Eric on the Apple board.

    Signature

    I don’t mind being wrong…,I just hate being wrong so FAST!

         
  • Posted: 03 August 2009 01:56 PM #21

    artman1033 - 03 August 2009 04:41 PM

    You know what they say: A “PROFIT” gets no respect in his hometown!!!

    I know and I felt bad about it but Minnesota needs all the “PROFIT” it possesses to stay home for awhile.  wink  Besides, it was well stated in a thread that is now but a memory that it’s best to stay on the good side of the Brits.

    Signature

    I don’t mind being wrong…,I just hate being wrong so FAST!

         
  • Posted: 03 August 2009 02:50 PM #22

    Should be Tim Cook TBH

    Signature

    .

         
  • Posted: 03 August 2009 03:06 PM #23

    artman1033 - 03 August 2009 06:00 PM
    rattyuk - 03 August 2009 05:50 PM

    Should be Tim Cook TBH

    WHY?

    HE IS PROBABLY AT EVERY MEETING ANYWAY!

    I could give a fresh outlook on the business.

    Dividends anyone?

    So the only payback is to attend the meeting? He did a pretty good job when Steve was unwell. He actually deserves it.

    Signature

    .

         
  • Posted: 03 August 2009 03:30 PM #24

    rattyuk - 03 August 2009 06:06 PM
    artman1033 - 03 August 2009 06:00 PM
    rattyuk - 03 August 2009 05:50 PM

    Should be Tim Cook TBH

    WHY?

    HE IS PROBABLY AT EVERY MEETING ANYWAY!

    I could give a fresh outlook on the business.

    Dividends anyone?

    So the only payback is to attend the meeting? He did a pretty good job when Steve was unwell. He actually deserves it.

    Mixed feelings on this.  If Steve were to step down as CEO today then absolutely do I think that Tim is the man for the job.  Steve stays CEO for five more years and the answer may be different.  Having Tim on the board at the point where those discussion would naturally take place would be uncomfortable.  If it started to become clear that Apple needed (or had identified) a visionary youngster (inside or outside) a couple of years from now it might become VERY uncomfortable.  Otoh. Tim may be one of those rare individuals that can look outside his own self interests in which case put him on the board if for nothing but the continuity he might provide.

    Signature

    I don’t mind being wrong…,I just hate being wrong so FAST!

         
  • Posted: 03 August 2009 04:03 PM #25

    BillH - 03 August 2009 06:30 PM

    Mixed feelings on this.  If Steve were to step down as CEO today then absolutely do I think that Tim is the man for the job.  Steve stays CEO for five more years and the answer may be different.  Having Tim on the board at the point where those discussion would naturally take place would be uncomfortable.  If it started to become clear that Apple needed (or had identified) a visionary youngster (inside or outside) a couple of years from now it might become VERY uncomfortable.  Otoh. Tim may be one of those rare individuals that can look outside his own self interests in which case put him on the board if for nothing but the continuity he might provide.

    I don’t see an issue here. As a fully engaged COO he is in part responsible for implementing the board’s directives and policies. His input is and would be helpful. In the absence of the CEO, he’s the top guy day-to-day at the company.

    I think this step is long overdue. One of the reasons perhaps this had not occurred before is Apple keeps a relatively small board made up almost exclusively of outside directors.

         
  • Posted: 03 August 2009 04:39 PM #26

    DawnTreader - 03 August 2009 07:03 PM

    One of the reasons perhaps this had not occurred before is Apple keeps a relatively small board made up almost exclusively of outside directors.

    I still believe it’s for the reasons mentioned above and appropriately so.  Succession has been an issue at Apple since it’s birth.  When Steve was iCeo, he spearheaded a search for his replacement and (crazy as it may sound) I believe he did that in good faith.  It has to be an ongoing discussion point at their meetings, particularly in light of Steve’s health issues.  You couldn’t have Tim sitting there as reservations are voiced about whether his leadership is what Apple needs going forward.  You couldn’t ask him to leave knowing he’d be sitting outside aware of the discussion that was happening within.  Additionally there are others that you want coming to work everyday thinking they have a shot (however remote) of being the next CEO.  If they do put Tim on the board it virtually guarantees the decision has been made.

    Signature

    I don’t mind being wrong…,I just hate being wrong so FAST!

         
  • Posted: 03 August 2009 05:34 PM #27

    Tiger - 03 August 2009 03:35 PM

    “Lots of people want an iPhone but won?t or can?t switch to AT&T.”

    To be blunt, tough noogies. If they WON"T, it’s their own fault. If they can’t, cry me a river.

    I want a Ferrari. I can’t buy that either. Should this country FORCE Ferrari to sell me something I can afford? No.

    Did the FCC force RIMM to open up their system to Mac users and provide them with support? No. I begged RIMM for four years running to support Mac users and was bluntly told NO. Repeatedly.

    The company had no interest in Mac users or the Mac platform. They were one platform only. Period. So where was the FCC then when Blackberries were dominating the smartphone market? Oh yeah, that’s right, Congress was doing everything in its power to support RIMM in their litigation in Canada so that they would not be shut down and the elected officials wouldn’t have to give up their precious crackberries. How soon we forget that they were ACTUALLY IN BED with RIMM.

    So you wonder where all this FCC pressure is coming from? Look no further than Capitol Hill.

    Oh, yes.

    There are lots of things I want on my Mac, and I am unwilling to switch to Windows to get them.  Please, Big Brother, make everybody put their Windows apps on OSX.  And while you are at it make AT&T put a cell tower near my office, so I don’t have to go out in the parking lot to take a call; Verizon has a tower nearby, but I am not willing to switch.  And I am sick of missing all the Broadway openings, but I am not willing to move to NYC, so please force them to make all those plays available in podunk on opening night.

    The American people are a big bunch of babies, and we are getting what is coming to us.

    Signature

    You will find hard currency at Midas Mulligan’s.

         
  • Posted: 03 August 2009 11:57 PM #28

    I must be missing something here and inhaling some kind of magic Apple dust because I think Apple would approve GV if at all feasible. While AT&T states that Apple does the approval, I simply cannot believe they didn’t in some way protect themselves from Apple launching apps that would either strain their network or steal their sources of revenue. If I was an AT&T shareholder (or director) and found that we’ve made a deal to pay huge subsidies to Apple to help sell their cool device,  that costs me dearly in the short term via the subsidy, AND could also bring down my network AND steal my revenue—I’d want many heads to roll. Who would sign a deal like that? They must have included some type of contractual obligation or have a financial penalty declared if Apple approves apps that allows either kill the network or provide customers significant ways around my traditional revenue streams. Maybe AT&T doesn’t have the final say, but they must have delegated that responsibility to Apple in such a way that they could have confidently signed the deal while protecting their own interests.

    We’ve seen this with Skype and Sling apps before, not until they are wifi-only do they get approved. Since Apple is here to sell gadgets, I think having 3G Skype, Sling, and Google Voice would help sell more devices and be a great thing for Apple—they wouldn’t stop these apps unless they had to. I also believe the AT&T relationship is strained, and being simply being ‘polite’ to your subsidy paying partner isn’t in the cards right now (remember all the guffaws at WWDC?). If Apple is denying these apps I think it’s because they really have little choice at the present time. I truly believe other carriers are around the corner, and the current flavor of the AT&T relationship has soured due to the pressure of these negotiations (in addition to 3GS rollout of MMS and tethering). So, I don’t buy that Visual Voicemail or SMS are large enough reasons of Apple self-interest to bar GV, but I do believe potential penalties from the contract terms with AT&T could explain it.

    Apple strategy - make great devices running as many cool software applications as possible. After bootstrapping the initial rollout via exclusive deals, make the devices available to as many users as possible and stir competition among the wireless carriers.

    Am I naive? Have I gone too fanboy?

         
  • Posted: 04 August 2009 12:58 AM #29

    BillH - 03 August 2009 07:39 PM

      If they do put Tim on the board it virtually guarantees the decision has been made.

    I’m not so sure. It reminds me of an old Andy Griffith Show episode in which Andy was explaining to Barney there there’s a difference between “sheriff’n” and “deputy’n.”

    There are two kinds of successful executives I’ve met: Kings and kingmakers. Not to take anything away from Tim Cook, but he’s a brilliant operations executive. No one knows if he even wants to be CEO.

    I’ve been in situations in which I’ve been involved in meeting and reviewing candidates for a position to be my boss. I was secure in the work I did and had no desire to step up.

    However, maybe call it ghost of John Sculley, but as COO Tim Cook has pretty much functioned as the company’s president and most likely deserves the title. It’s long past due for a company that ranks in the 10 of publicly-traded companies when ranked by market cap to have a formal CEO succession plan. I doubt there’s anyone in corporate America today that could bring the passion, expertise, knowledge and experience to Apple of Tim Cook and arrive on the job without upsetting the existing culture and modus operandi.

    This is a succession plan, not a search for a replacement in time of crisis.

    I haven’t seen the minutes of the Apple board meetings and executive committee meeting during SJ’s absence, but Tim Cook kept the company focused and on track during what could have been a tumultuous and awkward gap in time.

         
  • Posted: 04 August 2009 01:05 AM #30

    cranium - 04 August 2009 02:57 AM

    Apple strategy - make great devices running as many cool software applications as possible. After bootstrapping the initial rollout via exclusive deals, make the devices available to as many users as possible and stir competition among the wireless carriers.

    Am I naive? Have I gone too fanboy?

    No.  grin

    This may be where Apple is headed. Please remember Apple was new to the handset market and an exclusive deal provided a control on the service experience when this started. AT&T can’t hold Apple back and the company knows it. But AT&T has developed some expertise in working with Apple and understanding Apple customers the other carriers have not had a chance to develop. Watch for AT&T to be a big part of Apple’s domestic iPhone plans no matter the opening of the service to other carriers.