I'm sorry, but I side with Google. Apple has clamped down so hard on it's own product that I'm sure we all know of someone who's "Jailbroken" theirs just to increase its functionality and versatility.

AT&T is the same, making excuses for not being on top of the market they themselves created. It takes money to make money and until AT&T shows that they are willing to make the best network for the money they charge I have no sympathy when they struggle for bandwidth from pandora or slingbox. If they made their own apps to take the place of these faves, even more profits could be had instead of having to make excuses for their slower network.

Google, on the other hand, is providing services both for profit and for free, which draws more people to their side. You would think that such a business model would draw imitation, not exclusion.

If someone is so keen to have the Android app on an iPhone, why not let it? You still have to pay for the app, (cha-ching apple) and use the exclusive provider for the iPhone (cha-ching ATT).

Companies become more successful when they do what customers need, not dangling a carrot of services already offered elsewhere then excluding others on technicalities. This just makes a stronger case for switching over to "other" providers.

You are correct to say that money is a key motivational factor. Even for the consumer i.e. me... I want to pay as little as possible...and if possible, nothing at all... in order to talk for hours on the phone. If I get talk with webcam and a host of features such as the internet offers, but with the mobility of a phone (as I kinda experience already with skype on a mobile phone in London) ...and then at a cheap rate, I will gravitate to it. On the surface I will say "Justice for all!!!" but deep in side I'm looking out for number one. If the FCC considers that point of view, they could make a judgement that allows all kinds of innovations in communications. One things for certain, someone will feel the hurt.

After seeing the crap that Microsoft went through for just preinstalling it's own browser in it's own OS and not even blocking other browsers... Apple is 100 times worse when it comes to this kind of stuff. I didn't even realize how crappy Apple is about this stuff until I switched MP3 players. iTunes is a bunch of crap. Ny the whole *this is Apple's sandbox* stuff you are saying... isn't Window's Microsoft's sanbox? What about Google's search? Maybe Google should block Safari browsers?

After seeing the crap that Microsoft went through for just preinstalling it's own browser in it's own OS and not even blocking other browsers... Apple is 100 times worse when it comes to this kind of stuff. I didn't even realize how crappy Apple is about this stuff until I switched MP3 players. iTunes is a bunch of crap. Ny the whole *this is Apple's sandbox* stuff you are saying... isn't Window's Microsoft's sanbox? What about Google's search? Maybe Google should block Safari browsers?

I love Apple products because they work well (I used to be a long time PC user) but I don't agree with Apple's method to block anything they feel is a threat. I have a Voicecentral app for Google Voice and love the service. At the same time, I think AT&T has more to do with the rejection than Apple does. I may be wrong but I can't wait till the iPhone finally jumps ship to another cell carrier or on multiple cell carriers. http://ziggytek.com/

This seems to be something that's completely over looked by the author of this article and the people so far who have posted in response... i don't use any of apple's products because of reasons just like this but lets say i did - i just paid roughly $500 for an iphone, it's my device and i will put whatever i want on it! as far as i'm concerned, this is as simple as buying a car and then being told that i am prohibited from putting in an aftermarket stereo or tinted windows or my choice.

this is clearly a double-standard! microsoft gets sued because of internet explorer even though i have full right as a consumer to install firefox (which i did) but when it comes to apple, i can only install what they allow... this is my device and i will treat it however i want or i simply won't buy it.

i will never have anything to do with any of apple's products.

Google did not have to pay the wireless spectrum fees cellular companies paid. Google gets to piggyback it services off other other wireless providers. At the same time it can charge rates for it services. For now it is international rates subject to change of course. But the fact it offers free local/long distance calls in the states is amazing! The data usage alone from using the Google service would only create more strain on the ATT Network. This would result in even more skipped calls on their network. This can even make members jump ship to another carrier. There are many articles published that document the spotty network from ATT. If members jump ship they may go to another provider and may choose a android phone! Google has nothing to lose and only to gain.

True: AT&T, Apple and Google are all for-profit megacorporation and the are all competing for the same pool of users.

That said, Google business model is simply better and much more robust and this is what scares its competitors.

The use of expressions like "piggy-back" or "parasite" is simply silly in the context of this article. Neither AT&T and Apple contributed much to the technologies they are now using to make billions, so - if someone has to be considered a parasite that is probably not google, that has a long standing tradition of openness when it comes to the technologies it uses.

Beside, the article misses the main point: this is not a story about Apple and AT&T versus Google. This is a story of Apple and AT&T versus their own users.

The fact that ATT paid a lot of money for the licence is unrelevant here in terms of "justifying" their choices. If they did a poor investment... their fault. If they can't cope with the bandwidth demand from their subscribers... twice as much their fault! The fact they are trying to bully their own users in order to cover up for their lack of capacity is simply ridiculous.

The fact this article side with them it's even more so.

umm. Question. If Apple has a contract with AT&T to sell it's phone service exclusively through AT&T. And part of the contract is service. Would not Google Voice app be a breach of that contract. And if so, would it not be more responsible for Apple to pull it since it is their App Store?

in response to Mac first of all how can you say they have not contributed much to these technolgies they are using? Do you think cell phone towers grow up out of the ground like trees? How is that a fair staement? I'm not on anyones side but what we as consumers need to do is lose the entitlement. The bottom line is these things would not even exist if it weren't for these companies. And like it or not some little ol guy just like you or I work hard to get these companies to where they are and spent alot of money to make things happen. So just cuz they had initiative and created a business that quite obviously many people find good value in everyione thinks they can just do whatever they want on these devices and networks? Hmmmm seems like we should all look at this a little closer and realize people have become spoiled in general which might be the problem with a bigger issue...our country. So next time you think just because you spent money for a phone that you clearly felt was a value you agreed with or you would not have done it and you can do what you want think again...that phone would not even exist in this world if it hadnt been for those people that invested and worked hard to make these companies what they are. So why shouldnt they be able to tell you what you can and cant do with THEIR devices/networks?

gunit are you serious? If I buy it, it is my device not theirs. Does GM tell you how you can drive, does Lazy Boy tell you how to sit in the chair, does Maytag tell you how you can load the dish washer? According to your logic they worked hard to make those products, they must have the right to tell you how to use them.

Hawkiman This will be a waste of my time because you just related things that are so off the wall and unrelated to try and address my logic this wont make sense either....but tell you what go out back and start conjuring up materials enough to make your very own i-phone and cell phone towers, while your at will you make me a martini and I want the glass its in to be hand made by you and then I will throw it on the ground stomp on it in front of you after you spent days doing this and then tell me you don't have any say. My point isnt that its not yours when you buy it, my point is I get some say in how, where, when, for how much, and i do get a say in this type of situation in how my network is used. The analogy from earlier does not encompass all facets of business or product. But keep in mind GM does dictate how their vehicle is used, right down to the computer and everything else dictates to you how its driven including gas milaege.
Why is everyone so bitter towards someone making lots of money? Isn't that what this is all about? I want to make billions!! They wouldn't be billionaires if it wasnt fair value in our minds

gunit I never said AT&T didn't have a say in how their network is used. That is a service and they do have a say. I was talking about the iphone. You're right I don't understand your example. If I sold you the glass and the martini my profit has been made, what you do with it is your business. If you broke it in front of me I would be disappointed but it would not affect my profit. Maybe the Iphone situation is more along the lines of I made the glass and you can only drink from it what I say you can.

gunit I never said AT&T didn't have a say in how their network is used. That is a service and they do have a say. I was talking about the iphone. You're right I don't understand your example. If I sold you the glass and the martini my profit has been made, what you do with it is your business. If you broke it in front of me I would be disappointed but it would not affect my profit. Maybe the Iphone situation is more along the lines of I made the glass and you can only drink from it what I say you can.

Hawkiman, your point of view is invalid. You as a consumer have every right to use your phone however you want. However apple doesn't have the responsibility to support that use.

Jailbreak your phone, set it up for network access, nobody is stopping you from doing what you want with your device.

Apple is only stopping someone from selling you something, and like it or not it is their store, not yours. Now as a developer you might have right to an opinion about unfair business practice. If there is one.

No I don't support apple in this decision, but it has nothing to do with your rights as a consumer, it has everything to do with googles rights as a developer and apples as a storefront owner.

Apple the new ma bell if its up to Apple you can't buy install or use anything Apple feels its don't meet their standards. So if you want to buy it you have to pay Apple so wrong we live in a free enterprise nation so if I can't buy it but at the App store and they won't sell it then they are clearly telling me what I can do with a devise I paid for. The Iphone is not just a phone it's a PDA (personal data assistant) and the key word is personal which means I can make it do what ever I need it to do and since it has the cpu power of a computer under the hood (and there is no price discount) when you buy it then then its all mine. As my little hand held pc I should by law be able to buy and load software for any company that writes it. But Apple will not allow it in its store or it won't let them sell to us in any other store. The perfect example is PDA NET it was sold though the APP store was a very useful program but ATT said OH NO and they pulled it from the store and we couldn't get it anymore. PDA NET meet all the standards APPLE set forth for programs to be listed in the store now why it that they pulled it? because ATT didn't expect the IPHONE to take off the way it did with the 3g the network could not handle it now APPLE put a program in 3.0 that does the same thing as PDA NET did but thanks to ATT it's blocked in the US ATT plan on allowing it later on but they plan o charging you extra for it that wrong we pay for unlimited 3g data on the IPHONE so if I need to look something up in the field and need to view the whole page at one time I have to pay more? Don't think so for what they charge they should have 3g all over but they don't. I live in Washington on the northwest end of the state and my phone is on 3g maybe 25 percent of the time when APPLE and ATT give us the service they sold us on then I may say they can tell me how to use my own PDA.

I am not an Apple fan by any means, but it seems to me they are in the right here. First off, it's their store and they can sell whatever they want. Restricting what they sell infringes on no one's rights.
Second, while it may be your phone when you buy it and you can do whatever you want with it, as soon as you use it to make a call or connect to the internet, you are using a service provided by AT&T and Apple and there you do NOT have the right to do whatever you want. It is their service, not your equipment.
This argument about "I bought it so I cn do what I want" is not valid, because you aren't just using the phone, you are using their service. If you don't like it, you can either accept the way it is, petition the company to supply a service, or use a different phone. But demanding they support another company's profits without getting a share doesn't seem really fair.

The licence that AT&T or other phone companies received from the FCC is for bandwidth only and is in no danger from Google or anyone else.

For years phone company's were just that. They provided the lines. so to use any services you must buy the time on the line. That has not changed.

That is what they do, they provide a pathway and we pay good money for that. (and some times overpay)

But when it comes to added services they should not have an monopoly or even have a say.

If they what to provide additional services then they need to compete for our money like anyone else.

Can you Imagine if you could only watch TV broadcasts that were provided from the Electric Power company. Or could only use a gas oven to prepare food purchased from the Gas company. We would never stand for it.

When we buy Electricity the power company does not ask how we are going to use it. They don't care how many TV or Radios or Lights you have as long as you pay for the power being used (and as long as it is within the safety guidelines provided by the government)

The same goes for all utility's like Gas and Water and it should also be the same for Phone lines, both landline or wireless.

At the end of the day, if I buy a device, I will choose what goes on it. If I buy a GM car, I can modify it any way I like. GM can not tell me that I am not "allowed" to change the motor mounts and put a Ford engine in it. This is only part of why I refuse to buy Apple products. Additionally, they have abusive prices and bad customer service. As for AT&T, even though I own stock in them, I know their services suck. They also have a well documented history of screwing the customer. $5,000 for four hours of roaming service comes to mind as an example... Making a profit is fine, but abusing your customers is stupid. Vote with your money. Don't choose a device/service if they are going to exploit you.

I used to work in an outsourced call center for AT&T. I would never ever buy services from them! I felt so bad for the customers calling in about dropped calls, can't make/receive text messages or make/receive phone calls. I've seen the systems that show how many outages there were that day across the country. Kentucky had it really bad there for awhile. I'm a happy Verizon customer and have never had blackouts in service. My only complaint with them is that they don't have a tower where my mom lives which is out in the middle of nowhere. But AT&T doesn't have a tower out there either. I heard so many complaints about AT&Ts products and the iPhone too. I don't see how they keep customers. I own an LG phone...AT&Ts LGs look so CHEAP compared to mine. And I got mine from Verizon's website for $20. I have no pity for AT&T or Apple if they lost out on anything.

Apple does not tell anyone they are not "allowed" to do stuff to their iPhones. They make it hard, sure (and their efforts to make jailbreaking harder should not be applauded by any means).

Apple simply says they will not support it. And not only do they not have to (any more than GM has to honour a warranty if you've replaced the motor with an after-market substitute or something you built yourself), they realistically *cannot*. If you install a virus on your jailbroken phone, for instance, you can't possibly reasonably hold them responsible any more than you can hold GM responsible when you pour sugar in your own gas tank.

While their motives can be questioned for ethics, their right to act on those motives should not be restricted, because they do not prevent you from doing whatever you want to your own phone, they simply refuse to support efforts outside of their software licencing restrictions, and your warranty becomes invalid (just as installing Windows as the only OS on a Mac, which is perfectly possible, would not be supported by them either).

And yes, I would like this app, and I don't think Apple's reasons for restricting it are fair. But they are their reasons and they have a right to not offer it in the app store even for as simple a reason as "we don't want to" or "we don't like your president" when it comes down to it.

AT&T is above the law. We own your you! You cannot sue us, you cannot go against us. All your politicians R Belong 2 US! jcicconi@lga.att.com is not my email addy so do not email me. Your all nothing but riff raff!