The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) late Friday launched an investigation into Apple’s rejection of Google Voice for the iPhone, and the removal of similar software from the App Store.
In a letter sent to Apple, the FCC asked the company why it turned down Google Voice for the iPhone and pulled several other Google Voice-related programs from the iPhone’s only sanctioned online mart. The FCC also sent similar letters to both AT&T — Apple’s exclusive carrier partner in the U.S. — and Google, asking both firms to provide more information on the issue.
The FCC’s letter asked Apple whether it rejected Google Voice and dumped other applications on its own, or “in consultation with AT&T,” and if the latter, to describe the conversations the partners had.
In other questions, the FCC asked Apple whether AT&T has any role in the approval of iPhone applications, wants the company to explain how Google Voice differs from any other VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) software that has been approved and requested a list of all applications that have been rejected and why.
Finally, the FCC asked Apple to explain its App Store approval process, something that some developers have said is so shrouded in secrecy that they don’t know the rules. “What are the standards for considering and approving iPhone applications?,” the FCC letter asked.
Their hardware… Their choice.
Don’t like it.. Choose another phone.
#21 That’s what I say. But there are so many dimwits and masochists around these days that being abused seems a plus rather than an issue.
#21, KMART,
Finding another phone is a great idea. Then Apple and AT&T can go find another wave length.
Currently, ALL wavelengths belong to the people. They are divided up according to FCC regulations and oversight. If you don’t like the FCC regulations for public airwaves, go find your own.
This is what happens when you enter Steve’s “Reality Distortion Field” and “Drink the Kool-aid” !!! Just remember to HAND OVER YOUR WALLET ON THE WAY IN !!!
#19, nos,
Microsoft got in big trouble for simply including their browser with their OS
Not quite. They got into big trouble for including their browser and penalizing any OEM that included Netscape along with Windows. This is called “restraint of trade” and is illegal. People would have to d/l a version of Netscape on their own. D/l a 25+ mb app over dial-up was not a quick, easy endeavor.
Imagine if all software on your PC had to be approved by Microsoft,
MicroSoft did control who got access to the source code and could tie their apps to Windows. Part of the Trust agreement was to allow more access without restrictions.