subject:"\[CGUYS\] WSJ.com \| Why ATT Killed Google Voice"

I wish you would.


On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 7:10 AM, TPiwowar t...@tjpa.com wrote:

 Arguing with you guys is like trying to have a conversation with a coffee
 table. Fortunately there were many other posts that were thoughtful about
 this very interesting situation. Hang it up.





 *
 **  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
 **  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
 *



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] WSJ.com | Why ATT Killed Google Voice


So if you are using Google voice across the data plan as you describe does that 
essentially free you from the expensive daytime minutes restriction?
Can you get a cell phone with a data plan AND WITHOUT a talk plan?


Dan

Yes, it's called T-Mobile's SideKick--also Blackberry, other PDAs, 
Sprint's [or other carrier] USB data card. The carriers' USB data cards 
usually start with a $50/mo plan. T-Mobile's Blackberry unlimited data 
starts at $40, SideKick, $45 or $1/day PAYGO.


If you want unlimited data, use WiFi or WiMax [where available], but 
it's likely that neither will be free, unless you have unlimited access 
to open WiFi. For free WiFi via Skype, et al, you need an unlocked phone 
with WiFi that's not crippled by the carrier. Those are available for 
GSM networks, but probably not for CDMA.


Betty


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] WSJ.com | Why ATT Killed Google Voice

2009-08-23 Thread Jeff Wright

 Time for a REAL reality check. Apple has rejected many apps that it
 later accepted. They're not lying. They're being cautious. Apple
 developers prefer to delay a questionable app until it will work nicely
 with other apps and the OS. Google Voice does neither. They'll work it
 out like they've done before.

Well, there's a well-known and very good tech site with serious inside 
connections in the industry and then there's...your opinion.  Call me crazy for 
not taking you as seriously.

Apple's criteria for accepting apps isn’t what you would call organized.  Or 
predictable.  Or comprehensible.

It's all about the money and I'm fine with that.  I'm also fine with Apple 
telling Google to pound sand.  The least Apple could do is be honest about it 
instead of hiding behind their lawyer's skirts.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] WSJ.com | Why ATT Killed Google Voice

2009-08-23 Thread Mike


So you know google is lying...how do you know that?

Sent from my iPod

On Aug 23, 2009, at 10:06 AM, b_s-wilk b1sun...@yahoo.es wrote:



Time for a REAL reality check. Apple has rejected many apps that it  
later accepted. They're not lying. They're being cautious. Apple  
developers prefer to delay a questionable app until it will work  
nicely with other apps and the OS. Google Voice does neither.  
They'll work it out like they've done before.


Use GV on an iTouch or Nokia N-series or LG and forget about the  
iPhone.



*** 
**
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives,  
privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http:// 
www.cguys.org/  **
*** 
**



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] WSJ.com | Why ATT Killed Google Voice

2009-08-23 Thread TPiwowar


On Aug 23, 2009, at 1:35 PM, Mike wrote:

So you know google is lying...how do you know that?


The issue is not Google or Apple lying. It is you trying to insert  
misinformation into the account of what transpired.


GV was not rejected by Apple. It was not approved. The two are not  
the same.





*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] WSJ.com | Why ATT Killed Google Voice

So again, you are saying the FCC is involved for zero reason?

On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 12:14 PM, TPiwowar t...@tjpa.com wrote:

 On Aug 23, 2009, at 1:35 PM, Mike wrote:

 So you know google is lying...how do you know that?


 The issue is not Google or Apple lying. It is you trying to insert
 misinformation into the account of what transpired.

 GV was not rejected by Apple. It was not approved. The two are not the
 same.





 *
 **  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
 **  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
 *



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] WSJ.com | Why ATT Killed Google Voice


 Time for a REAL reality check. Apple has rejected many apps that it
 later accepted. They're not lying. They're being cautious. Apple
 developers prefer to delay a questionable app until it will work nicely
 with other apps and the OS. Google Voice does neither. They'll work it
 out like they've done before.


Well, there's a well-known and very good tech site with serious inside 
connections in the industry and then there's...your opinion.  Call me crazy for 
not taking you as seriously.

Apple's criteria for accepting apps isn’t what you would call organized.  Or 
predictable.  Or comprehensible.


When I did work for Apple, they were very secretive, very careful, 
fairly organized. With many projects in RD at the same time, most of 
the research groups were kept in the dark about each others projects. 
When the projects became viable, they were tested and retested, many of 
them scrapped rather releasing them if the product wasn't up to par.


With software, Apple is very clear about what is supported and not 
supported. They want everything to work seamlessly, and provide all the 
APIs for the developers to get their apps right, then have them tested 
repeatedly [unlike Microsoft which doesn't release all APIs to third 
party developers].


I have at least as much experience with Apple products as your so-called 
tech site. There are NO real inside connections with Apple, except where 
Apple allows. As soon as there are leaks, the leaker[s] is/are fired. 
Industrial espionage is serious business. I still have a cousin who 
works for Apple as an engineer. They're as secretive about their 
projects as the NSA.



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] WSJ.com | Why ATT Killed Google Voice

And yet still things leak.

On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 2:18 PM, b_s-wilk b1sun...@yahoo.es wrote:

  I still have a cousin who works for Apple as an engineer. They're as
 secretive about their projects as the NSA.





*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] WSJ.com | Why ATT Killed Google Voice

2009-08-23 Thread Eric S. Sande


They're as secretive about their projects as the NSA.


How do you know?


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] WSJ.com | Why ATT Killed Google Voice

2009-08-23 Thread Wayne Dernoncourt

TPiwowar
 On Aug 23, 2009, at 1:35 PM, Mike wrote:
 So you know google is lying...how do you know that?

 The issue is not Google or Apple lying. It is you trying
 to insert misinformation into the account of what transpired.

 GV was not rejected by Apple. It was not approved. The
 two are not the same.

slashdot.org has a link to an article on techcrunch(??)
discussing the status of the FCC responses.  Some were
heavily redacted.

-- 
Take care  | This clown speaks for himself, his job doesn't
Wayne D.   | supply this, at least not directly
Managing senior programmers is like herding cats!


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] WSJ.com | Why ATT Killed Google Voice

2009-08-23 Thread Jeff Wright

 I have at least as much experience with Apple products as your so-called
 tech site. There are NO real inside connections with Apple, except where
 Apple allows. As soon as there are leaks, the leaker[s] is/are fired.
 Industrial espionage is serious business. I still have a cousin who
 works for Apple as an engineer. They're as secretive about their
 projects as the NSA.

No, but they do have connections inside Google and with iPhone developers.  
They solidly rebut Apple's version and Michael Arrington, TechCrunch's founder 
and the story's author, is as fawning over Apple as any first-order MFB.

Yes, this is he said, she said.  I don't pretend it to be anything else, but 
I also don't pretend that Apple's version is the handed-down-from-God gospel.

I just want to know whom will sell who down the river first, Apple or ATT?


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] WSJ.com | Why ATT Killed Google Voice

The MFB set seems to completely ignore this would have never made any news
or into the FCC's radar pattern if Apple had actually not rejected the app.
There is no story, no reason to inquire.

On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Jeff Wright jswri...@gmail.com wrote:

  I have at least as much experience with Apple products as your so-called
  tech site. There are NO real inside connections with Apple, except where
  Apple allows. As soon as there are leaks, the leaker[s] is/are fired.
  Industrial espionage is serious business. I still have a cousin who
  works for Apple as an engineer. They're as secretive about their
  projects as the NSA.

 No, but they do have connections inside Google and with iPhone developers.
  They solidly rebut Apple's version and Michael Arrington, TechCrunch's
 founder and the story's author, is as fawning over Apple as any first-order
 MFB.

 Yes, this is he said, she said.  I don't pretend it to be anything else,
 but I also don't pretend that Apple's version is the handed-down-from-God
 gospel.

 I just want to know whom will sell who down the river first, Apple or ATT?


 *
 **  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
 **  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
 *



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] WSJ.com | Why ATT Killed Google Voice


And yet still things leak.


The leakers have been fired. One of the things that Apple does is to 
spread a lot of false rumors. When one of those rumors gets out, they 
know exactly who is responsible and fire them. There's a huge difference 
between leaks and rumors. The leak about the large touchscreens happened 
at a supplier in China. Those leakers have also been identified and fired.


You see/hear rumors. Nobody outside the company knows exactly what Apple 
is doing until their insanely great products are released. Which leaks 
have you heard/seen that aren't simply rumors?



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] WSJ.com | Why ATT Killed Google Voice

2009-08-23 Thread Eric S. Sande


One of the things that Apple does is to spread a lot of false rumors.


Deliberately?  I'd question the ethics of a company that did this.

I will say rhat any company can have proprietary information.

But that isn't the issue.  I'll TELL you what I'm doing and planning,
I have to.  Any publically held company, and AAPL is one, has to
play by the same rules.

If they play fast and loose, well, I'm not the police.  I don't necessarily
like them, and they don't like me, but I do respect them.

Hard to tell the evil from the good if all the players are on the same
field and playing by the same rules.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] WSJ.com | Why ATT Killed Google Voice


Eric S. Sande escribió:


   They're as secretive about their projects as the NSA.

How do you know?



Friends at both NSA and Apple.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] WSJ.com | Why ATT Killed Google Voice


One of the things that Apple does is to spread a lot of false rumors.

Deliberately?  I'd question the ethics of a company that did this.



Internally only. Plenty of other companies do the same including ones 
where I've worked. When a company has a unique product or a special 
formula, they do a lot internally to keep it secret. That's not 
unethical when the internal company policy is known to employees, as it 
is at Apple.


Those who deliberately expose company product or RD secrets are taking 
a known risk, and are themselves the unethical ones.



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

[CGUYS] WSJ.com | Why ATT Killed Google Voice

2009-08-22 Thread b_s-wilk

OPINION
AUGUST 19, 2009

Why ATT Killed Google Voice

By ANDY KESSLER

Earlier this month, Apple rejected an application for the iPhone called Google Voice. The uproar
set off a chain of events—Google's CEO Eric Schmidt resigning from Apple's board, and the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) investigating wireless open access and handset
exclusivity—that may finally end the 135-year-old Alexander Graham Bell era. It's about time.

With Google Voice, you have one Google phone number that callers use to reach you, and you pick
up whichever phone—office, home or cellular—rings. You can screen calls, listen in before
answering, record calls, read transcripts of your voicemails, and do free conference calls.
Domestic calls and texting are free, and international calls to Europe are two cents a minute.
In other words, a unified voice system, something a real phone company should have offered years
ago.

Apple has an exclusive deal with ATT in the U.S., stirring up rumors that ATT was the one
behind Apple rejecting Google Voice. How could ATT not object? ATT clings to the old business
of charging for voice calls in minutes. It takes not much more than 10 kilobits per second of
data to handle voice. In a world of megabit per-second connections, that's nothing—hence
Google's proposal to offer voice calls for no cost and heap on features galore.

What this episode really uncovers is that ATT is dying. ATT is dragging down the rest of us by
overcharging us for voice calls and stifling innovation in a mobile data market critical to the
U.S. economy.

For the latest quarter, ATT reported local voice revenue down 12%, long distance down 15%. With
customers unplugging home phones and using flat-rate Internet services for long-distance calls
(again, voice is just data), ATT's wireline operating income is down 36%. Even in the wireless
segment, which grew 10% overall, per-customer voice revenue is down 7%.

Wireless data service is ATT's only bright spot, up a whopping 26% per customer. How so? As any
parent of teenagers knows, text messages are 20 cents each, or $5,000 per megabyte. After the
first month and a $320 bill, we all pony up $10 a month for unlimited texting plans. Same for
Internet access. With my iPhone, I pay $30 a month for unlimited data service (actually, one
gigabyte per month). Is it worth that? The à la carte price for other not-so-smart phones is $5
per megabyte (one-thousandth of a gigabyte) per month. So we buy monthly plans. Margins in
ATT's Wireless segment are an embarrassingly high 25%.

The trick in any communications and media business is to own a pipe between you and your
customers so you can charge what you like. Cellphone companies don't have wired pipes, but by
owning spectrum they do have a pipe and pricing power.

Aren't there phone competitors to knock down the price? Hardly. Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile and
others all joined ATT in bidding huge amounts for wireless spectrum in FCC auctions, some
$70-plus billion since the mid-1990s. That all gets passed along to you and me in the form of
higher fees and friendly oligopolies that don't much compete on price. Google Voice is the new
competition.

By the way, Apple also has a pipe—call it a virtual pipe—to customers. Its iTunes music service
(now up to one-quarter of all music sales, according to NPD Market Research) works exclusively
with iPods and iPhones. The new Palm Pre, another exclusive deal, this time by Verizon Wireless,
tricked iTunes into thinking it was an iPod. Apple quickly changed its software to lock the Pre
out, and one would expect Apple locking out any Google phone from using iTunes.

It wouldn't be so bad if we were just overpaying for our mobile plans. Americans are used to
that—see mail, milk and medicine. But it's inexcusable that new, feature-rich and productive
applications like Google Voice are being held back, just to prop up ATT while we wait for it to
transition away from its legacy of voice communications. How many productive apps beyond Google
Voice are waiting in the wings?

So now the FCC and its new Chairman Julius Genachowski are getting involved. Usually this means
a set of convoluted rules to make up for past errors in allocating scarce resources that—in the
name of fairness—end up creating a new mess.

Some might say it is time to rethink our national communications policy. But even that's
obsolete. I'd start with a simple idea. There is no such thing as voice or text or music or TV
shows or video. They are all just data. We need a national data policy, and here are four
suggestions:

• End phone exclusivity. Any device should work on any network. Data flows
freely.

• Transition away from owning airwaves. As we've seen with license-free bandwidth via Wi-Fi
networking, we can share the airwaves without interfering with each other. Let new carriers
emerge based on quality of service rather than spectrum owned. Cellphone coverage from huge

Re: [CGUYS] WSJ.com | Why ATT Killed Google Voice

2009-08-22 Thread Mike Sloane

I usually avoid these endless pissing contests that seem to occupy so 
much Computer Guys bandwidth. But I have two comments to Mr. Kessler's 
piece: 1. I don't trust anyone who used to be a hedge fund manager to 
give an honest opinion of anything and 2. while I am against huge 
profits from either sanctioned or quasi monopolies, *somebody* has to 
pay for the infrastructure (both building it and maintaining it). If the 
users of the services don't pay for it, then who will?


Mike

b_s-wilk wrote:

OPINION
AUGUST 19, 2009

Why ATT Killed Google Voice


By ANDY KESSLER

Earlier this month, Apple rejected an application for the iPhone called 
Google Voice. The uproar set off a chain of events—Google's CEO Eric 
Schmidt resigning from Apple's board, and the Federal Communications 
Commission (FCC) investigating wireless open access and handset 
exclusivity—that may finally end the 135-year-old Alexander Graham Bell 
era. It's about time.



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] WSJ.com | Why ATT Killed Google Voice

2009-08-22 Thread TPiwowar

It is truly strange to see the WSJ arguing the benefits of a free  
market.


This is, of course, another manifestation of the network neutrality  
debate. It is bad for society to allow the carriers to impose bizarre  
restrictions on what devices can generate data packets on their  
networks and what those data packets can contain.





*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] WSJ.com | Why ATT Killed Google Voice

2009-08-22 Thread Mike

And also bad to charge different prices depending on what that byte  
carries. It is ridiculous that texting costs so much even when you  
have the unlimited data plan.


Sent from my iPod

On Aug 22, 2009, at 11:02 AM, TPiwowar t...@tjpa.com wrote:

It is truly strange to see the WSJ arguing the benefits of a free  
market.


This is, of course, another manifestation of the network neutrality  
debate. It is bad for society to allow the carriers to impose  
bizarre restrictions on what devices can generate data packets on  
their networks and what those data packets can contain.





*** 
**
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives,  
privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http:// 
www.cguys.org/  **
*** 
**



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] WSJ.com | Why ATT Killed Google Voice

2009-08-22 Thread Tony B

Most people would probably just say Who cares? Only elitist bastards would
pay over $100/mo for a telephone anyway.. I'm not sure I agree with them,
as there may actually be some people that make over $3.33 worth of telephone
calls a day. What about brain surgeons? Just because they functioned
perfectly well with beepers doesn't mean lives aren't being saved constantly
by these new services.

I know my wife, at about $50/mo, doesn't make anywhere near $1.66 worth of
calls in a day. All of it could wait until she gets home/to work.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] WSJ.com | Why ATT Killed Google Voice

2009-08-22 Thread mike

I have several friends who subscribe to the sprint 99 all in one plan.  They
do this because they keep no land line and no other connection to the
internet.  So figure in what you spend for land lines and your DSL/cable
internet and you might just be above 100 bux.

On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Tony B ton...@gmail.com wrote:

 Most people would probably just say Who cares? Only elitist bastards would
 pay over $100/mo for a telephone anyway.. I'm not sure I agree with them,
 as there may actually be some people that make over $3.33 worth of
 telephone
 calls a day. What about brain surgeons? Just because they functioned
 perfectly well with beepers doesn't mean lives aren't being saved
 constantly
 by these new services.

 I know my wife, at about $50/mo, doesn't make anywhere near $1.66 worth of
 calls in a day. All of it could wait until she gets home/to work.


 *
 **  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
 **  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
 *



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

[CGUYS] WSJ.com | Why ATT Killed Google Voice

2009-08-22 Thread b_s-wilk


OPINION
AUGUST 19, 2009

Why ATT Killed Google Voice


By ANDY KESSLER

Earlier this month, Apple rejected an application for the iPhone called Google 
Voice. The uproar
set off a chain of events—Google's CEO Eric Schmidt resigning from Apple's 
board, and the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) investigating wireless open access and 
handset
exclusivity—that may finally end the 135-year-old Alexander Graham Bell era. 
It's about time.

With Google Voice, you have one Google phone number that callers use to reach 
you, and you pick
up whichever phone—office, home or cellular—rings. You can screen calls, listen 
in before
answering, record calls, read transcripts of your voicemails, and do free 
conference calls.
Domestic calls and texting are free, and international calls to Europe are two 
cents a minute.
In other words, a unified voice system, something a real phone company should 
have offered years
ago.

Apple has an exclusive deal with ATT in the U.S., stirring up rumors that ATT 
was the one
behind Apple rejecting Google Voice. How could ATT not object? ATT clings to 
the old business
of charging for voice calls in minutes. It takes not much more than 10 kilobits 
per second of
data to handle voice. In a world of megabit per-second connections, that's 
nothing—hence
Google's proposal to offer voice calls for no cost and heap on features galore.

What this episode really uncovers is that ATT is dying. ATT is dragging down 
the rest of us by
overcharging us for voice calls and stifling innovation in a mobile data market 
critical to the
U.S. economy.

For the latest quarter, ATT reported local voice revenue down 12%, long 
distance down 15%. With
customers unplugging home phones and using flat-rate Internet services for 
long-distance calls
(again, voice is just data), ATT's wireline operating income is down 36%. Even 
in the wireless
segment, which grew 10% overall, per-customer voice revenue is down 7%.

Wireless data service is ATT's only bright spot, up a whopping 26% per 
customer. How so? As any
parent of teenagers knows, text messages are 20 cents each, or $5,000 per 
megabyte. After the
first month and a $320 bill, we all pony up $10 a month for unlimited texting 
plans. Same for
Internet access. With my iPhone, I pay $30 a month for unlimited data service 
(actually, one
gigabyte per month). Is it worth that? The à la carte price for other 
not-so-smart phones is $5
per megabyte (one-thousandth of a gigabyte) per month. So we buy monthly plans. 
Margins in
ATT's Wireless segment are an embarrassingly high 25%.

The trick in any communications and media business is to own a pipe between you 
and your
customers so you can charge what you like. Cellphone companies don't have wired 
pipes, but by
owning spectrum they do have a pipe and pricing power...

snip


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052970204683204574358552882901262.html


—Mr. Kessler, a former hedge-fund manager, is the author of How We Got Here 
(Collins, 2005).
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A15

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones  Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] WSJ.com | Why ATT Killed Google Voice

2009-08-22 Thread TPiwowar

Apple's response to the DOJ inquiry looks a lot more plausible than  
the explanations proffered by the conspiracy theorists. In a  
nutshell, adding Google Voice to an iPhone significantly changes the  
operation of the iPhone. It replaces so many of the iPhone's  
functions that it left Apple wondering if the result was still an  
iPhone.


Apple claims that it did not reject Google Voice, but that it merely  
delayed its approval and kicked the decision upstairs to a senior  
management committee. They need some time to sort it out.


In a sense this is like the situation when right-wing wackos edit a  
film to meet their higher standards and then try to redistribute  
the film. The courts have ruled this illegal. The creator if the work  
has the right to control what is in the work. If the creator wants to  
issue a censored version it is their right to do so, but a third  
party may not do it.


Here Apple has to decide what is essential about their iPhone and to  
what degree they will allow third parties to change the essential  
nature of their creation. There are good arguments to be made on  
either side of this issue. I can understand Apple being unable to  
make a snap judgement on this one.


If the extensive changes made to the iPhone by Google Voice break  
some of the functionality of the iPhone will customers blame Apple or  
Google? Who has to make repairs?


http://www.apple.com/hotnews/apple-answers-fcc-questions/

The best of all worlds might be to have Apple and Google work  
together to make this work.



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] WSJ.com | Why ATT Killed Google Voice

2009-08-22 Thread mike

Everything is the fault of those damn neomircrosofticons eh?  How you manage
to bring your made up boogey men into everything is amazing.  That said the
fact you back Apple is shocking...shocking!  Changes the iphone so it's not
an iphone...uh...yeaaah.  So the FCC is investigating Apple *not* rejecting
the app because it was kicked higher up...but the app that wasn't rejected
and is being investigating for being rejected, *if* perhaps Apple had
rejected it...but did not...it would be because their iphone would suddenly
be some other thing not an iphone. But they didn't reject it so the FCC
investigation is just a big waste of time anyway?  That right?

You are brilliant!

On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM, TPiwowar t...@tjpa.com wrote:

 Apple's response to the DOJ inquiry looks a lot more plausible than the
 explanations proffered by the conspiracy theorists. In a nutshell, adding
 Google Voice to an iPhone significantly changes the operation of the iPhone.
 It replaces so many of the iPhone's functions that it left Apple wondering
 if the result was still an iPhone.

 Apple claims that it did not reject Google Voice, but that it merely
 delayed its approval and kicked the decision upstairs to a senior management
 committee. They need some time to sort it out.

 In a sense this is like the situation when right-wing wackos edit a film to
 meet their higher standards and then try to redistribute the film. The
 courts have ruled this illegal. The creator if the work has the right to
 control what is in the work. If the creator wants to issue a censored
 version it is their right to do so, but a third party may not do it.

 Here Apple has to decide what is essential about their iPhone and to what
 degree they will allow third parties to change the essential nature of their
 creation. There are good arguments to be made on either side of this issue.
 I can understand Apple being unable to make a snap judgement on this one.

 If the extensive changes made to the iPhone by Google Voice break some of
 the functionality of the iPhone will customers blame Apple or Google? Who
 has to make repairs?

 http://www.apple.com/hotnews/apple-answers-fcc-questions/

 The best of all worlds might be to have Apple and Google work together to
 make this work.



 *
 **  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
 **  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
 *



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] WSJ.com | Why ATT Killed Google Voice

 Apple's response to the DOJ inquiry looks a lot more plausible than
 the explanations proffered by the conspiracy theorists. In a
 nutshell, adding Google Voice to an iPhone significantly changes the
 operation of the iPhone. It replaces so many of the iPhone's
 functions that it left Apple wondering if the result was still an
 iPhone.
 
 Apple claims that it did not reject Google Voice, but that it merely
 delayed its approval and kicked the decision upstairs to a senior
 management committee. They need some time to sort it out.

You first feign outrage over Google Voice and then almost immediately fold
like a cheap chair and spew a they're just so misunderstood defense of
Apple.

Usually at this point in the script there's a lively song and dance number
to bring the audience back.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] WSJ.com | Why ATT Killed Google Voice

2009-08-22 Thread b_s-wilk


Apple's response to the DOJ inquiry looks a lot more plausible than
the explanations proffered by the conspiracy theorists. In a
nutshell, adding Google Voice to an iPhone significantly changes the
operation of the iPhone. It replaces so many of the iPhone's
functions that it left Apple wondering if the result was still an
iPhone.

Apple claims that it did not reject Google Voice, but that it merely
delayed its approval and kicked the decision upstairs to a senior
management committee. They need some time to sort it out.


Sorry about the double post. Listserve sent a rejection notice for WSJ 
story that's posted, and rejected the PC Mag story instead, but didn't 
mention it [--sending now].


I posted two different articles about the same issue. I give very little 
credence to anything on the editorial page of the WSJ, but it's 
certainly provocative--and narrow-minded. Consider the header, using 
Kill instead of a more accurate description. ATT isn't dying, it's 
SBC, an incestuous relationship that is doing just fine. None of this 
would be an issue if the telcos would embrace new technology, and price 
it fairly. No, they prefer to continue to double-charge for cellular 
calls and cry foul when they get slapped by Google and Skype--and FCC.


It makes sense for Apple to reject the GV technology that could possibly 
cause major changes in the iPhone's functionality, however, Google Voice 
is the perfect kind of app for the iPod Touch. When a technology affects 
an Apple product so significantly, it's good business to wait, do 
serious RD to determine as many effects as possible before making GV 
available.



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] WSJ.com | Why ATT Killed Google Voice

 I posted two different articles about the same issue. I give very little
 credence to anything on the editorial page of the WSJ, but it's
 certainly provocative--and narrow-minded. Consider the header, using
 Kill instead of a more accurate description. ATT isn't dying, it's
 SBC, an incestuous relationship that is doing just fine. None of this
 would be an issue if the telcos would embrace new technology, and price
 it fairly. No, they prefer to continue to double-charge for cellular
 calls and cry foul when they get slapped by Google and Skype--and FCC.

So get a T-Mobile myTouch, which runs Android, and get all the Google Voice you 
want.  No ideological contortions needed.  T-Mobile's A-Y-C-E 3G plan is $25 
for web and $35 for web and messaging.

You get a great phone with GV on it without waiting and ATT+Apple get the 
message loud and clear.

Click here for the instructions:  

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/09/how-i-learned-to-quit-the-iphone-and-love-google-voice/


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] WSJ.com | Why ATT Killed Google Voice

 Apple's response to the DOJ inquiry looks a lot more plausible than
 the explanations proffered by the conspiracy theorists. In a
 nutshell, adding Google Voice to an iPhone significantly changes the
 operation of the iPhone. It replaces so many of the iPhone's
 functions that it left Apple wondering if the result was still an
 iPhone.
 
 Apple claims that it did not reject Google Voice, but that it merely
 delayed its approval and kicked the decision upstairs to a senior
 management committee. They need some time to sort it out.

Time for a reality check:

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/21/the-simple-truth-whats-really-going-on-
with-apple-google-att-and-the-fcc/

Our sources at Google tell us in no uncertain terms that Apple rejected the
application. And we have an independent third party app developer who tells
us that an Apple Exec also told them back in July that the Google Voice
Application was rejected.

In other words, there is strong evidence that Apple is, well, lying.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] WSJ.com | Why ATT Killed Google Voice

2009-08-22 Thread db

So if you are using Google voice across the data plan as you describe
does that essentially free you from the expensive daytime minutes
restriction?

Can you get a cell phone with a data plan AND WITHOUT a talk plan?

Jeff Wright wrote:

I posted two different articles about the same issue. I give very little
credence to anything on the editorial page of the WSJ, but it's
certainly provocative--and narrow-minded. Consider the header, using
Kill instead of a more accurate description. ATT isn't dying, it's
SBC, an incestuous relationship that is doing just fine. None of this
would be an issue if the telcos would embrace new technology, and price
it fairly. No, they prefer to continue to double-charge for cellular
calls and cry foul when they get slapped by Google and Skype--and FCC.

So get a T-Mobile myTouch, which runs Android, and get all the Google Voice you
want. No ideological contortions needed. T-Mobile's A-Y-C-E 3G plan is $25
for web and $35 for web and messaging.

You get a great phone with GV on it without waiting and ATT+Apple get the
message loud and clear.

Click here for the instructions:

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/09/how-i-learned-to-quit-the-iphone-and-love-google-voice/

*
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*

Re: [CGUYS] WSJ.com | Why ATT Killed Google Voice

 So if you are using Google voice across the data plan as you describe
 does that essentially free you from the expensive daytime minutes
 restriction?

I don't know the specific details.  You'd have to contact TM.

 Can you get a cell phone with a data plan AND WITHOUT a talk plan?

Soon, you won't be able to *not* get a data plan on ATT with a smartphone.

http://gizmodo.com/5342749/att-forcing-data-plans-with-all-smartphones-starting-sept-6


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] WSJ.com | Why ATT Killed Google Voice