Google: Apple DID reject Google Voice. Thus, Apple DID lie to the FCC

rr0de Wow do you have a LOT to learn about antitrust law. You honestly think giving a volume discount is evil and anticompetitive but barring application from running on a supposedly open platform based on whether the application comes from a competitor is just fine? That's amazing.

Supporting Apple products (on the whole - the iphone being the dramatic exception) is really more about it "not being Microsoft" than it actually being a good product. It's more about perception of excellence rather than actual excellence. Of the four friends I know that have macs (2 macbooks, 1 macbook pro and a 24" imac) - all four of them have complaints BUT all 4 of them rationalise the problems and they all make an excuse for Apple. Apple has positioned itself brilliantly. It's the only company I know that has brainwashed it's consumers into believing that not knowing and not understanding is a good thing. The old joke being that someone goes into the configuration panel on their mac and their mac responds, "what are you doing? the settings are fine." "These are not the droids you are looking for.." I've always treated Apple with the same disregard that they deserve. They ship shiny things that allow silly, egotistical people to see their own reflection. The sad sad truth is that a large majority of Apple supporters don't see a great product - they see the great person that was so clever to buy that great shiny toy. Good job. Enjoy paying your Apple tax :) (of topic? sure.. hell fun to rant? definitely.)

this is really an important issue and Paul is right to cover it and right to point out the facts. he did create the facts. He reported them as they are. Apple did lie to the FCC and about a very important matter that has the potential to impact all of us. It is probable that the way we communicate using voice on mobile devices will change dramatically over the next ten years. It is likely that as we know them, carriers will no longer exist - we will all have entirely virtualized numbers and ubiquitous access to wireless broadband. Apple's actions clearly were designed to prevent this inevitable advance in how we communicate to preserve mobile voice communications as they are. Google is way ahead in this space and it's about time we faced the fact that while it will take time, voice communications will change very significantly over the next decade.

@Semp and Mike G, The exact opposite is possible for PC users - where each PC, if a person wants it, can have just about any configuration they wish and they can change it whenever they wish. It's very open and equally diverse. Communications should be the same way - I mean the potential is so great and this is why this story is so important. I don't think people understand why Paul is covering it so carefully - it is not about Apple, really, but rather about how the company's behavior is blunting the realization of the potential in virtualized communications. Eventually we'll have it and software will make it possible for any person speaking any language to speak with any other person speaking another other language on the planet - or any group of them. Can you imagine the implications of such a capability?

"gadfly10 said: Where was this outrage when the BeOS was deliberately being obstructed by Microsoft?" I don't know. Outrage from who? "gadfly10 said: Hypocrites." Who are hypocrites?

@Prs: hypocrisy |hiˈpäkrisē| noun ( pl. -sies) the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense. hypocrite |ˈhipəˌkrit| noun a person who indulges in hypocrisy; a Microsoft enthusiast.

@mikegalos: Microsoft forced contracted OEM's, who received significantly lower prices (volume discount) on Microsoft's Windows operating system, *NOT* to install any operating system (such as BeOS) besides Microsoft Windows. Fact: Microsoft abused their monopolistic power. And it's absolutely not OT. You're a hypocrite if you continue to criticize Apple (despite the fact that Apple does not restrict store such as Best Buy from selling the Zune or PlaysForSure devices.)

"gadfly10 said: @Prs: hypocrisy |hiˈpäkrisē|" Perhaps you misread my post. It happens. I asked you who you were accusing of hypocrisy, not for a definition of the term. Further, how does anyone's hypocrisy (or the lack thereof) affect whether Apple lied to the FCC?

gadfly, Actually you're pretty seriously misinformed. Microsoft did NOT prevent the installation of competitive operating systems or (as Apple is accused) prevent the installation of competitor's applications and, in fact, spent considerable amounts of money recruiting, training and assisting competitors to produce applications on Windows. What Microsoft DID do was offer to large OEMs the choice of documenting how many copies of Windows they sold (and thus needed to pay for) or, if they only sold Windows, only having to document how many comptuters they sold since that would be the same number. If they only sold Windows the documentation job was obviously easier, and saved both the OEM and Microsoft significant accounting and paperwork costs. The objection that you are apparently so concerned about was that it would have been better for Microsoft's competitors (but worse for their customers) if Microsoft had pocketed the savings rather than passing them on to the OEM and indirectly to the customer. Perhaps you think that saving money for the user by passing on savings from bureaucratic efficiency is abusive. I do not. As for being sued over BeOS, that wasn't until 2002 which was both well after Be was a non-entity after having lost their intended goal of being sold back to Apple. By that time, Be had been sold to new owners who were trying desperately to find any source of revenue from their purchase of a zombie product. Note that the case never went to trial. Now, care to go back on topic and explain why you, apparently, think it's just fine for Apple to prevent competitors from selling applications for iPhone?