Google Engineers show off Voice

(Important note: If you want a Google Voice number, or know someone who does: Wait times for new applicants are widely said to be down to a week or less.)

Google Voice is a gigantic potential winner for Google, possibly on the level of Google Search and search advertising. (Yes, that big!) It’s quite possible that anyone who’s serious about using a phone will eventually have a Google Voice number.

Yet at this early point the most striking thing about Google Voice, having written a book about it and now writing this blog, is the difficulty of explaining it to people. There’s no one killer thing that Google Voice does that makes it a “must” for everyone.

William Wood Jr, writing in the Lexington (Kentucky) Herald-Leader, put it well: Google Voice is “one of those things that you don’t realize you need until you start using it.”

Emily Miller had a similar take on Politics Daily: “Google Voice is the telecom invention that everyone wants, though few understand how it works.”

Miller goes on to describe a rocky adoption process among Google execs when the company had begun to consider purchasing GrandCentral: “Chan said Page and Brin didn’t initially understand it either: ‘It took months for me to get them to put it on their phones, then to get them to use is it. But it wasn’t until they put it on their wives’ phones and they got it, that they became enthusiastic.’”

And a good guide to where Google Voice might be going: “Walker said that he continues to update Google Voice based on user feedback. ‘I ask people: What frustrates you about your phone?’ he said. ‘What about your phone contract makes you feel you are being taken advantage of? Those are the things that I want to fix.’”

Early adopters love technology like this. That’s because early adopters pursue joy and satisfaction. For people in this group, a technology has only to be interesting, moderately useful and affordable. Google Voice is fascinating, highly useful and free. No problem! Early adopters can be expected to adopt Google Voice in droves. It’s already being mentioned regularly in the press as a “cool kids” social media tool.

Mainstream users, by contrast, are driven by fear and pain. They don’t trust new solutions, and they don’t change unless they more or less have to. For mainstream users, a technology has to be compelling (solving a big problem), easy to adopt and affordable. In addition, it must be so popular with early adopters as 1) to greatly reduce the risk of trying it and 2) to make the mainstream user feel left behind if they don’t try it. Google Voice is not yet compelling to mainstream users (there’s no one must-have feature); it’s quite tricky to adopt, especially without phone number portability; the only checkbox it meets is that it’s affordable, being free.

That’s why Apple’s rejection of all Google Voice apps from the App Store is so crucial. My impression is that most cell phone early adopters have iPhones, as either their only mobile or one of two or three they keep with them. The App Store’s success and innovation means that no early adopter type can be caught dead without an iPhone! While a few are so upset at Apple over Google Voice as to leave the iPhone, most will stick with it, Google Voice or no.

Unless there’s a very good Google Voice solution for the iPhone, Google Voice could get stuck, never saturating the key early adopter segment and gaining momentum for the mainstream.

I don’t think that the workarounds developed so far, nor even the mobile Web site that Google is developing for Google Voice, are going to be good enough. Google badly needs one of two things to happen:

• Apple accepts Google’s free iPhone app for Google Voice;
• Apple restores one of the previously available Google Voice apps, which cost a few dollars each.

Until one of these things happens, acceptance of Google Voice will be severely slowed.

In this situation, Apple’s “nyet” is a rock, and Google Voice is a stream; the stream will probably find its way around the rock over time. But if the rock is removed, the stream will flow much faster.

Partially in response, the FCC has launched an official investigation of US wireless carriers’ competitiveness – focusing on handset exclusivity deals, carriers’ roaming deals and spectrum auction rules. It’s all seemingly sparked by the Google Voice / App Store hassle.

It’s impossible to know what the results will be, but this is potentially huge. It could change most things about the world of cell phones, and smart phones in particular. Any changes – whether made by companies to forestall government action, or by regulation – are likely to be of benefit to Google Android and Google Voice, which are designed for an open ecosystem. The best example is the widely held opinion that Apple will relent and allow Google’s app  for Google Voice into the App Store sooner rather than later, which would seemingly be only due to government pressure.

Wikipedia has a long interview with wireless industry spokesman Chris Guttman-McCabe. It’s interesting, but can be summed up by one sentence from him, in the second of three parts of the interview: “I don’t think prescriptive rules are necessary.” Well, he would think that, wouldn’t he? (For a good list of criticisms, see 10 Things We Hate About Wireless Carriers and The People vs. Cell-Phone Tyranny.)

As a further counterpoint, there’s informed criticism – and a prediction of better things to come for consumers – from a veteran of the AT&T breakup of the cell phone industry’s position.

PS. With Apple iPhone and Android moving into China – Android with the largest Chinese carrier, Apple with the second-largest - and most of the early adopters being English-speaking, there’s a good opportunity for Google Voice penetration if the service is extended there (even if, initially, it’s in English). The Google Voice people (and perhaps the sales side of Apple) will want the Google Voice/iPhone problem solved before then; the Google Android people might prefer that the logjam isn’t broken up quite so soon.

News highlights – “clash of the titans”

Several sources describe how Apple may be worried that Google has too many of its apps on the iPhone already (including Maps, YouTube and Search) and that Google Voice might have been the tipping point, making it more a gPhone than an iPhone.

The New York Times, in an official editorial, comes out in favor of net neutrality for both fixed and mobile broadband. Interesting, and appreciated, because the NYT is strong enough to muscle out competitors in a less-than-neutral world. Separately, the chair of the FCC vowed to enforce net neutrality.

Anick Jesdadun of the AP has a good summary of barriers to full use of the Internet, defining net neutrality and using the Google Voice-on-iPhone hassle as an example.

Steven Shankland has an excellent summary of the Apple/AT&T/Google “kerfluffle” on CNET, predicting flatly: “Google will win out because it has one powerful ally on its side: the Web.” This is the summary to show your friends who don’t understand what all the fuss is about.

Skype has raised many call connection fees. These are not big changes, but this is the move of a company turning toward maximizing profit from its existing user base, not a company seeking to beat others to world domination.

A Spotify music app was approved on the iPhone, with speculation that it may have been partly an attempt by Apple to be seen as a good guy after the Google Voice hassle. Gpush, a Gmail notification app, was approved as well, again to widespread surprise.

Users may gain an exemption to copyright law making it fully legal to “jailbreak” iPhones. (The law is currently unclear.) A decision is expected in October.

If you really want to understand the increasing importance of data transmission over voice in the wireless market – including all sorts of devices along with cell phones – Karen Mulvany has the facts for you in an analyst’s note on ClearWire. (And here’s a downbeat note on Clearview and an interview with the CEO.)

GigaOm reports that one in four (!) US households are now cell phone only, and suggests directions for Google to do even more in wireless.

And Google’s apps, potentially including Google Voice, may be movin’ on up to the big leagues. The City of Los Angeles is considering moving part of its IT needs to Google Apps.

News highlights – Google Voice news, usage, tips and tricks

Rafe Needleman of CNET has an excellent review of using Google Voice on various smartphones: Android wins, BlackBerry is a close second, and using the current version of the Google Voice mobile Web site on iPhone is described as “a load of crap”.

Another blogger claims that Palm Pre is already second to Android. Palm is said to be working on a very high level of integration for Palm Pre with Google Voice – perhaps even better than Android’s, with the Google Voice number considered as the “true” number for the phone.

A new answering service bills itself as “the perfect partner for Google Voice” in what is unfortunately a badly written press release.

LifeHacker calls for five improvements to Google Voice: less lag, SMS/MMS multicast, better Google Apps integration, universal voice dialing and leaving voice notes for yourself and sending email while you drive (wait, isn’t that six?). Separately, LifeHacker describes how you can already use Google Voice as a kind of Dictaphone, to record and transcribe notes to yourself .

Google had a problem that made Google Voice calls drop after 15 minutes, just the kind of thing that people worry about in having Google as, in part, their phone company. It seems to have been fixed, but Google, and users, won’t be wanting a lot of recurrences.

Michael Arrington describes life after porting his cell phone number to Google Voice – which Google allowed him to do now, and which the rest of us can hope for in the months to come. (This somewhat punishes those who make the effort to adopt Google Voice now, get some or all their contacts switched over to the new number – and then find that if they waited a bit they could have had number portability. But that’s part of the fun of being an early adopter!)

Nadeem Unuth on About.com points to a new service, Voxbone, that gives you one phone number for life – from an area code not specific to any one geographic spot. I know I’d love it if people didn’t make guesses about where I came from based on my phone prefix. How ’bout it, Google – can we have Voxbone numbers for Google Voice?

And Google has added free Canada calls to Google Voice – something GrandCentral had that Google Voice had, until now, taken away. That just leaves Alaska and Hawaii (home state to President Obama) out in the cold, and out in the sunshine, respectively.

On the lighter side:

• TechCrunch, running again in the Washington Post, says that the Mac fanboy base – infamous for death threats against critics of anything Apple – may be lightening up.
• Apple and China will be working together to better oppress their respective masses.
• John Fort of Forbes compares Apple’s “walled garden” to Animal Farm.

“It’s not the crime that gets you, it’s the cover-up” – Washington saying, originally referring to Watergate

Google Voice continues to serve as the catalyst for a major conflict around the rights of cell phone app developers and customers that will likely, in the end, serve to open up these platforms.

The FCC ’s letters of three weeks ago have now received responses from Apple, AT&T and Google. The letters asked a series of questions about the rejection by Apple of Google’s iPhone app for Google Voice. The answers are little short of amazing.

Apple claims that it “has not rejected” the Google Voice app; it simply “has not been approved”. Of course, it was “not approved” on the same day that Apple pulled three already-approved Google Voice apps. Also, Google’s statement at the time that the app was rejected – and that it would instead be shifting its efforts to improving the Google Voice mobile Web site – was not corrected, publicly or, apparently, privately by Apple.

If Google had truly misunderstood, it was far too important a mistake to let stand – which can only mean that Apple is not telling the truth. Instead, Google said – and Apple, in yesterday’s letter, confirmed – that it was being invited to upgrade the mobile Web site. Why have Google do that if the app still had a chance?

Apple’s Orwellian attempt at redefining words beggars belief. It’s insulting not only to the FCC but to the partners that work with Apple and the public that buys Apple’s products – the American portion of which public has its interests represented by the selfsame FCC.

Apple then goes on to state reasons for rejecting the Google app – which they claimed they didn’t do. Mainly the non-denial denial has to do with the app replacing iPhone functions. The funny thing is, this does not occur – for calls to the phone’s native number. Google is offering an alternative number, which actually has nothing to do with the iPhone directly – it only directly affects AT&T.

Apple also claims that users’ contacts are copied to Google servers: quite an incisive claim, seeming to reflect a level of detailed technical knowledge surpassing the unknowns (to Apple) around VOIP – yet something that doesn’t occur at all.

The last time a major tech company gave such a brash response to the US Government was Microsoft’s claims in response to what became the biggest antitrust lawsuit of the 1990s – a legal process that continues today, with ongoing regulatory diktats and large fines from the European Union.

AT&T managed, for now, to keep itself out of the whole issue, claiming it had no role in Apple’s actions and was not consulted on them. AT&T then goes on to justify why it’s entitled to weigh in anyway. The denial seems too flat – even AT&T can’t be sure there isn’t a letter, e-mail, meeting note, or Google Voice voicemail transcript(!) somewhere that could at least be construed as exactly such a discussion. If such surfaces, AT&T will be on the hook as well.

Google redacted – that is, didn’t release publicly – the content of its discussions with Apple. This has the effect of not embarrassing Apple by publicly contradicting them on the day of these announcements. However, the FCC stated in their original letters that they would reject broad requests for confidentiality, suggesting that they may well release the answers from Google that Google seeks to keep confidential.

It’s worth noting that the FCC’s request has already served the public interest. Apple and AT&T disclosed more about the App Store and its approval process, and AT&T’s rights with regard to apps, than had ever been done before. This can only help developers and, ultimately, users, at no cost to Apple and AT&T. In fact, both will benefit from more and better apps, less need for rejections and less angst around the process. It’s a shame it took so much drama to achieve this result.

So what will happen with Google Voice? Michael Arrington at TechCrunch, who have been all over this story, predicts that Apple will soon have to cave in and accept the Google Voice app. This is what Apple’s answer could be preparing a waiting world for: Apple, having never rejected the app, would then complete its review and approve it. This is the result that would best serve the public and accelerate adoption of Google Voice in the shor t term. (Though the Google Android team would no doubt like this to drag on for a couple of years.)

If Apple doesn’t cave in soon, the FCC, having been told by Apple that it’s #1 – by means of an upraised middle finger – now has little alternative but to act. Apple can expect to be caught in the regulatory meat grinder for years to come. The legal disposition of the process is almost beside the point; another tech Gulliver is about to be hobbled by what it seems to see as the Lilliputians who run regulatory bodies and, ultimately, governments. (Which would mean that those vote them in and out of office aren’t worth any consideration at all, apart from our wallets. )

The direct effect of this for Google Voice users would be that they might not have a Google Voice app on the iPhone for years to come. (A better mobile Web site, as Google is working on now, certainly – but no app.) Competing platforms, however, would be boosted – largely  meaning Android and BlackBerry.

In the longer term, though, smartphone platforms are likely to be opened up, for developers and users. The FCC’s public statements, and the pressures it’s under from Congress, point in this direction. Apple simply chose to begin the contest for control by serving up a nice, fat softball for the FCC to whallop out of the park, in the form of the Google Voice apps rejection. And Apple, bloodied by criticism but unbowed, has now done it again with its non-answers to the FCC.

Don’t be surprised if the FCC’s next steps focus on the existing developers whose Google Voice apps were yanked by Apple a month ago. There’s no defensible rationale for that action, and Apple has, mistakenly, not yet put the issue to bed by approving these apps. This undeniable, after-the-fact rejection is a wedge into much that Apple would prefer not to discuss, disclose, or change.

With the three companies’ answers to the FCC’s questions due this Friday, it may be a good time to draw a line under the broader coverage, to use a British expression. Google Voice is both symbol of, and a key player in, a battle over tens and hundreds of billions of wireless data revenues, a market that will probably be worth a trillion dollars in not too many years. As the focus of the FCC’s actions, it will be in the news for a long time to come.

In the long run, Apple will probably have given the FCC the wedge it needed to drive net neutrality for mobile broadband just as we currently (just about) have for fixed broadband. This will lead to a world in which people buy phones and get service separately, slowing sales of higher-end smartphones as they’ll no longer be subsidized. They’ll have to earn their way into consumers’ lives like PCs and other standalone purchases, which will in the long run lead to better value for users.

As for the direct impact of Google Voice, it’s looking more and more like it will be Google’s second major market winner, after the Search/AdWords combo. This is an amazing accomplishment for a company that has put its fingers into a lot of pies trying to pull out another plum like its success in leading in, then monetizing, search.

And what does this mean to users? Google will continue to improve and extend Google Voice and gradually put all its muscle behind deepening its penetration in the US and extending its availability worldwide. We’ll see gradual but steady progress. Google Voice, like Google Search, will gradually change the world.

- Bud Smith

Dallas Morning News: Google Voice streamlines your phones and provides functions all services should offer

Jim Rossman of the Dallas Morning News offers a detailed review of Google Voice, but doesn’t lose sight of the big picture. All he wants is to be able to port his home phone number to Google Voice – then cancel his home phone service! He says: “In the future, all phones should have this power.”

My take: Best summary yet of the impact Google Voice should have.

LA Times: “The deal maker could be its integration with Google Voice”

The LA Times has a sensible-sounding review of the MyTouch 3G that points out three things I’ve long believed: That the MyTouch lost its main selling point against the iPhone by ditching the keyboard found in the G1; that the change leaves it vulnerable to a point-by-point comparison with the iPhone, which it loses (screen size, apps base, ease of use…); and that the only remaining selling point for it, thanks to Apple, is its excellent Google Voice integration.

My (further) take: Google is lucky in its enemies at the moment; Apple has placed itself on the wrong side of what will probably be a losing battle with the FTC, but may maintain its position for just long enough to make Google Voice a key market entry driver for Android vs. the iPhone. So Google gets differentiation for Android in the short term and all-platform support for Google Voice in the long term.

USA Today: Fight to keep Google Voice app off iPhone catches FCC’s eye

USA Today has a long, thorough and expert analysis of the battle over Google Voice on the iPhone. Lesley Cauley covers all angles, expertly catching the AT&T lies cited in this blog and other currents and sub-currents.

My take: Rallying public opinion is crucial in these battles. With friends like AT&T, nicely balancing incompetence in operations with mendacity, Apple hardly needs enemies.

Tech Universe: Apple is on FCC’s Radar with Google Voice Ban

A short article. Key quote: “While Google Voice might have been the trigger, the FCC’s mission is actually much loftier: making sure the mobile Web is an open, consumer-friendly environment like the Internet. What regulators don’t want is for the mobile Web to follow in the footsteps of cable TV or traditional (voice) wireless, where operators tightly control the consumer experience.”

My take: Best summary yet of the true goals of “the case”! (See Telstra Quick Take below.) At least, I hope so.

Quick Take (Google Voice-specific):

• LifeHacker has great tips for getting Google Voice notifications on your Mac – then pushing them out to your iPhone.

Quick Takes (Apple not feeling the love):

• eWeek has a tongue-in-cheek list of 10 Ways Apple Can Fix the Google Voice Public Relations Blunder. Any list that starts with having Steve Jobs take anger management classes can’t be all serious…
• MacWorld sees an end to the techno-elite’s revolt against the iPhone, quoting liberally from a David Coursey rant against Apple, without quite pointing out that they certainly have a horse in the race…
• iPhoneBlog reports on a class action lawsuit against Apple and AT&T for advertising MMS on the iPhone when it was not, in fact, available. In fact, it still isn’t, though it has been promised for late summer. The FCC’s investigation of Apple could result in similar consumer lawsuits as well as official FCC action; the responses to the FCC’s letters of inquiry will be fertile pickings for legal freelancers.
• Geek.com points out that iPhone developers really have little choice except to play the App Store game Apple’s way, if they want to participate in a hot market that gets plentoy of attention – and generated an estimated $150M in sales last year. (That’s with more than 1B downloads and more than 50,000 apps – 16 cents per download and $3,000 per app). FierceMobileContent adds that only a few apps actually get used regularly. Many are called (to users’ iPhones) but few are chosen (to actually be used).
• PC World reports that iPhone 3GS users are astoundingly satisfied with it, at 99%. The “very satisfied” number is amazing 82%. Chief dislikes: AT&T at 55% (Sprint is hated more) and battery life at 41%. (Which is sort of a compliment too – people just want to use it more.) These numbers are effective response to all kinds of criticisms and even enforcement actions; if customers are being hurt by some of Apple’s actions, they sure aren’t showing it.
• MobilitySite links to a video showing an iPhone being shot with a 9mm handgun, then incinerated…

Quick Takes (battle for the billions):

• The admission by Australian mobile leader Telstra of anti-competitive practices, now being followed by a “net neutral“ country-wide mobile broadband solution, is seen as a bad omen for Apple in its brewing battle with the FCC.
• iStockAnalyst has an entertaining description of the upcoming battle between Google+China Mobile and Apple+China Telecom to capture “chuppies”, the top 10% of the market, who can afford smartphones and associated service packages in China. This group is largely English-speaking. Early advantage is Google’s, as the bigger carrier chose it and Android over Apple, and will be launching its Android-powered OPhone(!) ahead of the iPhone.  No GV in China yet, but perhaps it will be an early target.
• Wireless data revenues are expected to grow by more than 25% next year, says iSuppli, while revenues to all wireless operators are expected to remain roughly flat at $866B(!). eWeek points out that the wireless data revenues are already 10% of all wireless operator revenue. This is the money AT&T, Apple and Google are fighting over, as pointed out by cellular-news.
• Major US carriers are rejecting nearly $5B in stimulus funds to extend broadband access, possibly due to net neutrality rules in the program. So no effective stimulus, for broadband access nor for the broader economy…
• MobilitySite links to a video showing an iPhone being shot with a 9mm handgun, then incinerated…

The key question in all this for Google Voice users is: What will our alternatives be on the iPhone going forward? At the moment, with no apps at all, we’re almost cut off from the hottest phone out there. (While committed iPhone users are cut off from the hottest phone service out there.)

Things are looking up. Google Voice should release its revved-up version of the Google Voice mobile Web site soon. It probably won’t be as good as the BlackBerry app, let alone the Android one, but better than having nothing specific for the iPhone.

In the longer run, Apple, AT&T and Google all have to respond to the FTC by next Friday the 21st. This may eventually lead to Apple’s allowing one or more apps back onto the iPhone, semi-voluntarily (if they’re smart) or by a direct application of force majeure.

However, we’ll no doubt never have what I, for one, was hoping for before the Google Voice App Store rejection, and ejections, were announced: an iPhone with Google Voice as fully integrated as it is on Android today, and both improving together from there. Barring a merger of the two companies, we’ll probably never see the best phone, in so many ways, and the best app ever fully merged either.

Let’s take a look at the last few days of news for its direct impact on Google Voice.

Ars Technica: Google Voice and You: What It Is and How You Can Use It

Jacqui Cheng offers a strong potted history of Google Voice, AN introduction to the service and informed speculation on its future.

My take: This is the article to send around to friends who wonder just what Google Voice is all about.

PC Magazine: Google Improves Transcription in Google Voice

Google Voice transcriptions are said to be improved, even adding punctuation. This PC Magazine article points to their earlier full review that complains about this and the official Google blog post announcement.

My take: This kind of gradual improvement is something Google does rather well; we can only wait and see where it takes us.

PC Magazine: Google Voice (Android) review

PC Magazine again – for Android users, and those considering an Android phone, the iPhone turn-down, plus the excellent new Google Voice app for Android, adds up to a big plus for Android. PC Magazine gives Google Voice on Android a full review, four stars out of five and calls it a “must-download”. The review highlights the full integration of native and GV functions, with the slight exception of SMS (two different SMS inboxes). The app is compared favorably to the BlackBerry version.

My take: Ironically, frustration. Great to see Google Voice achieving its potential, but I want a keyboard phone to pair with my iPhone. (Partly so I can respond to voicemails by email.) The HTC Magic/MyTouch is all screen, and sorry, but no one’s going to outdo Apple, the App Store (even with restrictions) and the iPhone’s 6 square inches of screen on that. My pain should be relieved soon; with a dozen Android phones expected before Christmas, one of them just about has to be a very good phone with a very good keyboard.

Poynter Online: How Journalists Can Use Google Voice to Improve Their Reporting

Writer Etan Horowitz points out the advantages of Google Voice for journalists.

My take: I knew most of this from Chris Dannen (see next article), but it’s good to see it so intelligently articulated for the rest of the world – including those who aren’t journalists themselves, but may have some similar needs.

FastCompany: Is 3jam Better Than Google Voice?

Writer Chris Dannen (disclosure: my co-author on Google Voice For Dummies) reviews 3jam, a paid-for product that does much of what Google Voice does. Key points are that it’s great for SMS, has tech support and an API – all weak or missing in Google Voice.

My take: Great to see competition. Google Voice will only get better with it, and having an API for 3jam may lead to real innovation that influences the entire scene.

Geeksugar (“Geek is Chic”): Top 5 Reasons to Use Google Voice

This blog is part of OnSugar, which is kind of like an online teenage girls’ magazine. GeekSugar, which is for apparently for teenage girls with pocket protectors, takes on Google Voice. Photos (which look like publicity stills from Beverly Hills 90210) show the top 5 reasons for using GV: A phone number you’ll have forever – but other people won’t; It’s all online; Ring more than one phone; Best call screening ever; Custom greetings.

My take: This is one of dozens of articles “translating” Google Voice’s advantages to particular audiences; there will be many more. This is one of the best of its type, worth a look even if you aren’t a teenage girl with a pocket protector.

Business Week: Services That Eliminate Telephone Tag

Writer Arik Hesseldahl compares Google Voice and RingCentral, a somewhat Google Voice-like service that seems primarily aimed at small businesses. Hesseldahl sees GV as best for consumers. Importantly, he points out that now, with GV, he rarely misses an important call – and that the voicemail alerts and transcriptions help him recover quickly when he does. He also bigs up RingCentral for having phone number portability and many business-friendly features, as well as an iPhone app(!).

My take: I’m ecstatic to see this kind of comparison for a service like RingCentral that takes Google Voice features to the next level. This kind of thing is nothing but good for all of us, as users of current and future offerings.

“Apple is evil” (or not) quick takes:

• InfoWorld’s Tom Yager offers a compelling summary of just how much Google contributed to the iPhone – and how this boosted Google in the mobile business. Eerily reminiscent of Apple-Microsoft cooperation in the early days of the Mac. As in so many divorces, it may be the kids (that would be us) who suffer most.
• Apple has accepted a Gmail push app, perhaps in a sign of an App Store thaw.
• Jailbreaking is on the rise (from 7% to 8.4% of iPhones in a month, by one measure; that’s about one out of 12). Ethiopian Review gives 6 reasons to jailbreak your iPhone, listing Google Voice, 3G apps and tethering as the first three – not a bad little list!
• Jason Calacanis offers a much-discussed Case Against Apple on Silicon Alley Insider.
• Om Malik shares data that shows app development sharply rising on both iPhone and, even more so, on Android (from a much smaller base, of course). He opines that Android may wipe the floor with other competitors (Pre, Symbian) before doing much damage to Apple. (Malik is an iPhone ditcher too.)
• The Music Ally blog surveys Google’s own competitive dustups, concluding that it isn’t evil, but may well qualify as a bully.
• Apple’s Phil Schiller offers a human face for the company by commenting on a couple of rejections, defending some aspects of Apple’s decisions and promising to “listen and learn” going forward. (He doesn’t comment on the GV one, but perhaps he shouldn’t, with the FTC responses due soon.)
• And on a humorous note: Wired’s Lore Sjoberg is incensed about his own sad record of App Store rejections. Low-fat chicken breast recipe videos fronted by naked porn stars; Steve Jobs Strip Poker; direct connections to phone sex lines, all rejected! What can those evil monopolists at Infinite Loop be thinking?

Most of the discussion, though, has missed the key point of the whole series of events – the one aspect of the whole brouhaha that was, at least in a broad, moral sense, a crime. This wasn’t the rejection of Google’s Google Voice app. Google’s people are big boys, and can look after themselves – as shown by David Pogue’s comment that they would develop a version of their mobile Web site for Google Voice to replace the rejected dialer.

No, the crime was the cold-blooded execution of the three existing Google Voice apps: Sean Kovacs’ GV Mobile, Riverturn’s Voice Central and gvDialer from MobileMax. These apps had already been approved and were for sale on the App Store. They had press reviews, revenues, and real, live customers – who are also customers of Apple and AT&T.

The key point is that nothing material changed between the approval of each of these apps and their being rejected. The developers didn’t all do something wrong; nothing relevant in the marketplace changed between the approval and the removal. They were crushed only because they were in the way – which is no reason at all.

Ironically, the crime against these developers is the one part of the whole mess that’s simple, clear, and unarguable; yet it’s also the one part that’s easily reversed.

The apps involved each have an interesting history. GV Mobile had quickly become the leader on the iPhone due to its friendly and useful blend of distinctive features and protective camouflage, looking just like similar iPhone functions. (Yes, that’s what Apple complained about, but it was true when the app was approved too.) The app’s developer was said to have gotten a call from Phil Schiller himself apologizing for the delay in his initial approval. Voice Central’s history went back to Grand Central days, so they had had two major approvals. gvDialer is following an interesting multi-platform strategy that may yet prove a winner; no other platform is stopping them from selling their app.

And Apple stepped on all three. In fact, it wiped them out as App Store apps. GV Mobile is trying to continue in the Cydia store for use by pwned iPhones and iPods, while gvDialer continues its multi-platform strategy, minus the biggest smartphone platform around.

Who gets the blame for this? There’s only one person at Apple who can overrule Phil Schiller, and that’s whose hand the smoking gun is in.

Is AT&T at fault? On the Google dialer app, perhaps. But not on the three existing apps. Apple had a strong response to any serpentine whisperings in their corporate ear on this front. All Apple had to say was:  ”Sorry, we already gave approval, a while ago to boot. We don’t treat our developers like that – and if we were to do so in this case, the outcry, not to mention any regulatory response, would be bad for both you and us. So, no.”

The Google dialer app decision can be argued endlessly, but there’s a pretty good case for Apple having the right to deny approval for it. Retroactively rescinding approval given to smaller players, who had already garnered customers, is much harder to defend. If there’s anything in all this that qualifies as “evil”, this is it. (And if there’s a bone in all this that the FTC can gnaw for years if it wants to, this is that as well.)

The surprising thing to realize is that this is one gun that can be un-fired quite simply. I’ll even write the statement for Apple:

“In the process of reviewing Google’s application for a Google Voice dialer app, we also reviewed three existing Google Voice apps. In the process of denying Google’s application, we decided to remove the existing apps as well.

This latter decision was a mistake. We apologize to the developers involved and to our joint customers who have been inconvenienced by this action.

We are working with the developers to restore their apps to the App Store and are discussing with them compensation for their lost sales during this period.”

Apple can release this statement tomorrow. It would make the developers, their existing customers, and their potential customers – all customers of Apple and AT&T as well – whole.

Until Apple takes this step, all these other issues will continue to circle around both Apple and AT&T. If Apple restores these three apps, all their related problems will begin to improve from that moment forward.

While the debate over net neutrality continues, David Pogue of the New York Times, a huge Apple fan, is livid over the Google Voice apps rejection, and a good summary of reasons not to use GV appears.

TruVoIPbuzz: 8 Reasons Why You Should Not Use Google Voice as Your Primary Number

Writer, and long-time GrandCentral and Google Voice user, Alok Saboo cites 8 reasons not to use GV as your primary number: Possible SMS receiving problems, difficulties with making calls from your GV number, no in-network free minutes, the possibility of outages, reports of slight delays in voice calls, privacy concerns, lack of SIP support (err, what about Gizmo5?) and lack of support for users.

My take: A very good roundup of the case against using GV as your main number except for a huge omission: doubts about how you can use your GV number overseas. The case as made seems a weak one to me, against the benefits, cost savings and control Google Voice gives you.

New York Times: Is Google Voice a Threat to AT&T?

David Pogue describes the App Store rejection of Google Voice apps, highlighting the two retroactive rejections. “The blogosphere goes nuts”, he puts it. He blames AT&T/Apple and their “Soviet information-control style”, which has made “martyrs” of the apps. He points out that Google is working on improving the Google Voice mobile Web site to offer the same features in a way Apple can’t easily block.

My take: A must-read. Pogue has been a HUGE booster of both the iPhone and Google Voice. (He wrote the book on the iPhone – the very popular iPhone, The Missing Manual.) With Pogue taking Google’s side, Apple is not due to have many friends left in this battle.

PC World: Why We Need Net Neutrality — And Why We Need It Now

A rally ing call for net neutrality by a developer. The article compares the open situation on computer broadband to the much more restricted situation for mobiles.

My take: Worth reading, this will be fought out in Congress with the new bill introduced (see yesterday’s post).

ZDNet Asia: Smartphone battleground: Apple and Google head to China

The #1 cell phone carrier in China, China Mobile, will soon be offering two Android phones. The #2 carrier, China Unicom, will be offering the iPhone a few months later. Apparently the exclusive for iPHone will run three years, giving Google three years to sell China Mobile customers – those who aren’t willing to change carriers to get an iPhone – on Android. Separately, the Financial Times speculates that the reason for Apple’s rejection of Google Voice apps has to do with intense competitiveness over China

My take: The China situation has no direct effect on Google Voice, as it’s not available in China and may not be for a long time to come. But if and when that does happen, Android, which has the best-integrated Google Voice app so far, may have a very strong position in the market. Indirectly, success with Android encourages investment in it and Google Voice, and vice versa. As for China competititiveness affecting the App Store, it’s hard to see it. The FCC’s queries should help get to an answer.

Ethiopian Review: Rejected By Apple, iPhone Developers Go Underground

This in-depth article profiles Cydia, the App Store alternative for jailbroken iPhones. Cydia is now the only place you can get GV Mobile, the leading app that was canned from the App Store by Apple.

The article claims 10 percent of iPhone/iPod Touch users, or 4 million people, have installed Cydia – which looks like a claim that 10 percent of iPhone/iPod Touches are jailbroken. The article describes most jailbreakers as “nerdy rebels” and describes the relative chances for developer success on Cydia versus the App Store, including some sales figures.

My take: If 10 percent have done a jailbreak, that’s amazing. If it’s made faster and easier – and, through Apple and AT&T’s actions, ever more necessary – that number could double or triple, which would be a very big impact on Apple and App Store developers indeed.

Voxilla: Skype Only Winner as Apple Jilts Google

Article points out that Skype is the winner from the App Store hassle over Google Voice apps. Skype is the world’s largest telephone company, by minutes, and Google Voice keeps minutes on AT&T and other traditional mobile carriers, whereas with Skype they’re lost.

My take: Good point, though it ignores AT&T’s potential loss of highly profitable SMS and long-distance revenues to Google Voice, which complicates the picture.

DailyTech: Apple Rejects Dictionary, EBook Apps on Profanity, Piracy Grounds

A dictionary app has been rejected from the App Store for containing curse words, and eBook apps are being rejected en masse because many eBooks have copyright problems or open issues. Separately, Apple senior VP Phil Schiller claims it wasn’t censorship, but a wait for parental controls in new Apple firmward – the first time Apple has said anything publicly about any App Store rejection.

My take: This of course seems a bit rich when most songs on iPhones and iPods are illegal, so by the same logic those devices shouldn’t be sold. However, it may be part of an effort to clean up the App Store, though not communicated or managed at all well by Apple.

Wireless Week: Google Voice Indicative of a Trend

Writer Andrew Berg describes 3jam, a Google Voice competitor. This service does cost money, but it can be “white labeled” by competitors, meaning that a Google Voice-type service could be offered with your cell phone plan. This would lack number portability, though. The article also describes someone having multiple phone numbers for, say, Facebook, another for their soccer team, etc.

My take: Things are about to get strange if we have different phone numbers for different purposes. The situation will only get more confusing before winners emerge, though Google, through Google Voice, looks set to be one of them, or the biggest one. (You might need Google Voice even more to deal effectively with calls coming from new sources.)

Quick Takes:

• myTouch is said to be cheaper than Palm Pre or iPhone, at about $2000 for 2 years of average usage (myTouch) vs. $2400 (Pre) and $2900 (iPhone).
• FierceBroadbandWireless writer Lynnette Luna anticipates quick FCC action potentially leading to mandated wireless openness, outlawed handset exclusivity deals and regulations for app stores, among other changes, and all sooner rather than later.
• Ethiopian Review makes a case against FCC intervention in the App Store, citing overall intense competition in the smartphone market.
• Mashable writer Ben Parr shows momentum growing for Android apps.

Orlando Sentinel: Review: Let freedom ring with Google Voice

Blogger and newspaper writer Etan Horowitz gives a detailed review of Google Voice, which he’s used since GrandCentral days. He describes the service as allowing you to put a “virtual wall around yourself”, including screening your calls and blocking some people completely. He identifies convincing people to contact you on a new number as the biggest hurdle to using Google Voice, along with making your Google Voice number show up in the Caller ID of people you’re talking to. He concludes that “Google Voice is worth it for most people, especially the self-employed, business travelers and students”.

My take: A good description, except for leaving out cheap international calls from a landline or, particularly, a cell phone.

PC World: Inevitable: Apple Should Accept Google Voice

Well-known tech journalist David Coursey calls on Apple and AT&T to let customers have Google Voice. He cites their “user-hostile” policies and how AT&T could begin to repair its image. He also describes how the companies have “already lost big in the court of public opinion” and have much more to lose as the FCC proceeds. This follows an useful earlier summary of where the Obama FCC is going.

Coursey cites the App Store problems and the iPhone’s lack of multitasking as key weaknesses. He also points out that, at this point, there aren’t many good alternatives. Palm Pre is only just emerging, still with a weak selection of apps. Android is still just reaching its stride, with the dozens of devices it’s due to appear on not yet available.

My take: Coursey’s recommendation is exactly right. Unfortunately, a reversal on Google Voice is extremely unlikely to happen, given the corporate personalities involved. Instead both are heading for much bigger trouble than the current storm in the blogosphere, unless they reverse course and take Coursey’s well-intentioned advice.

Reuters: Google’s Android to aim at businesses

Journalist Sinead Carew writes of Andy Rubin, leader of Google’s Android effort, describing how Google will aim at business. He then goes on to talk about 3D gaming and social networking as key areas of focus. The company is also advertising Google Apps on billboards. David Coursey accurately observes that Google does not yet have a compelling story, but that RIM risks falling behind.

My take: RIM didn’t get BlackBerry where it is in business with a scattershot approach. An unimpressive press appearance by Google. It may be that Android will succeed as much due to handset makers and other friends, like Coursey, as due to Google itself.

eWeek: 10 Reasons Why Apple’s Battles Will Bolster Competition

Well-known tech columnist Don Reisinger sums up why Apple’s various battles will be good for competition. Included: Apple has been a bully; other app stores, including Google’s Android Market, will serve as homes for rejected apps. He also points out that “Google isn’t to be messed with”.

My take: A good overview of some of Apple’s troubles and a cautionary tale for fans of Google.

Slate: The Great iPhone Lockdown

Slate columnist Farhad Manjoo takes on the rejection of Google Voice apps. He expertly summarizes the issues, pro and con, before coming down on the side of the FCC in acting.

If you want to understand what some of the argument is about, Slate also has an article on the broadcast spectrum, mentioning Google’s role in trying to open up access to more of it.

My take: This article demonstrates the best of old school journalism while using the flexibility of blogs, for instance in linking to related articles. The best-written and most readable summary so far, and the one you should send any friends or colleagues interested in the issue.

Information Week: Game On For Net Neutrality

Blogger Michael Hickins sums up the major points of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009, or IFPA, drafted by House Democrats Ed Markey (of climate bill fame) and Anna Eshoo. It prohibits network operators (that would be AT&T, among many others) from prioritizing, or discriminating in delivery of, content or applications; charging more for particular types of content; and preventing anyone from accessing the Internet. Providers must disclose practices that affect users. Hickins goes on to cite discrimination against Skype, SlingBox, Google Voice and others, notably (but not only) in the App Store.

My take: This bill, or at least the argument made, seems to argue that bandwidth should be free, which it isn’t. Otherwise, the devil is in the details. This bill will at least serve as a threat to network operators as to how they might be placed under a much tighter legal framework if they don’t act the way Congress wants them to.

BBC: Oiling the digital society

BBC commentator Bill Thompson explains how current competitive battles, such as the Google Voice scuffle, take place within “the larger project of embedding information technology in all aspects of our lives”, shared by all the companies and people involved in technology.

My take: Exactly! I’ve been working in tech for thirty years and this is the best I’ve heard this put.  “The Project” has attracted some of the best minds around – who have not always gone on to do the best things.

After yesterday’s monster post, I determined to be more selective and only write up stories that directly related to Google Voice. Seemingly in response, dozens of stories came up, either quite specific about Google Voice or tying it quite nimbly to broader themes that will affect the mobile telecomms environment for years to come.

TechRepublic: Google helps military personnel

Michael Kassner describes how impressed he is by a new Google offer: guaranteed, priority Google Voice access for soldiers – anyone with a .mil e-mail address – and 24-hour processing of the request.

The offer was introduced by soldier Sgt Dale Sweetnam, working with Google on an Army training program, who described it thus on Google’s official blog: “Loved ones can call to leave messages throughout the day, and then when that service member visits an Internet trailer, all the messages are right there. It’s like a care package in audio form”.

This received huge, and hugely favorable, press coverage. It contrasted to news that social networking sites (including Twitter, Facebook and MySpace) are immediately banned for Marines and likely to be restricted for other servicepeople. Google Voice will be a welcome alternative.

My take: Brilliant marketing by Google, “doing well by doing good”. Also making a virtue of Google Voice’s slow rollout, limited availability and inability to put through calls when you’re out of the country. Sweetnam again: “I know when I return to combat, Google Voice will help make life a little more manageable”.  It doesn’t get any better than that, in style or substance.  (Invites are here.)

CNET: Apple, Google Voice, and number portability

Dave Rosenberg ties the Apple/AT&T mess over Google Voice to an overall battle over number portability, not just the actual number but the experience across different environments, including caller ID for your portable number and not the device’s number.

My take: This is exactly what a dialer accomplishes, and the article is valuable for tying Google Voice to bigger issues.

DailyTech: AT&T Blames Apple for iPhone Google Voice Rejection

Jason Mick passes on AT&T’s dismissive comment on the FCC’s letters about banning Google Voice apps from the App Store: “AT&T does not manage or approve applications for the App Store. We have received the letter and will, of course, respond to it.”

He points out that this is false. In reference to the earlier decision to restrict Slingbox (a TV forwarding service) on the iPhone to WiFi only, AT&T had said:

“Slingbox, which would use large amounts of wireless network capacity, could create congestion and potentially prevent other customers from using the network. The application does not run on our 3G wireless network. Applications like this, which redirect a TV signal to a personal computer, are specifically prohibited under our terms of service. We consider smartphones like the iPhone to be personal computers in that they have the same hardware and software attributes as PCs.”

So AT&T is not involved – except when it is. Mick also points out that Steve Jobs said in public that AT&T is the reason apps like Skype are WiFi only and that AT&T is actively policing VOIP apps. (Which Google Voice is not, technically, but similar in some of its effects on AT&T’s revenues.)

My take: Part of the brilliance of the FCC’s letters to Apple, AT&T and Google is that the letters invite the principals to contradict one another in their responses. This was perhaps too subtle for AT&T, which has instantly and publically contradicted itself. (With further, public, help from Jobs.) Apple and AT&T are making it much easier, indeed almost necessary, for the FCC to take action of some sort.

ComputerWorld: Next-gen Android phone goes on sale Aug. 5

Matt Hamblen rounds up reviews of the new myTouch 3G Android phone from HTC. It will sell for $200 with a two-year service plan, has a 3.2″ touch sceen and a 3.2 megapixel camera with video.

Other key points:

• It has no physical keyboard, unlike its predecessor, the G1. This is a big differentiator for consumers – some will like it, some will cross it off their list.
• The Android Market only has a tenth of the iPhone App Store’s apps, but quality is high.
• myTouch 3G works well with Google Voice.
• myTouch 3G is thinner and lighter (that would be the “no keyboard” part), and has better battery life, but still has too many control buttons.
• 18 Android phones will arrive in the rest of 2009 and there are 30 carriers selling them in 20 countries. Andoid could become “the global standard for smartphones”.

My take: Android is getting good notices now and is seen as having a very bright future. Having the best Google Voice integration available is not going to hurt, especially in contrast to the current situation on iPhone.

Silicon Alley Insider: Google Will Triple In Three Years

Heather Leonard describes a visit by Scott Kurnit, tech investor and founder of About.com. Kurnit is extremely bullish on Google Voice, Google Wave and Google Android, saying, amazingly, that each could be as big as Google’s current business. He thinks Google’s stock could triple in the next 5 years as this unfolds.

My take: This sounds too good to be true, but even if it’s only partly right, Google has a lot of room to move upward. I can certainly  see Google Voice and Google Android helping each other to strong positions.

FierceMobileContent: Palm complaint charges that Apple restrains trade

Jason Ankeny both reports on and analyzes a ground-breaking move by Palm. Palm has complained to industry group USB Implementers Forum, which Apple and Palm both belong to, that Apple’s interference with the Palm Pre’s syncing to iTunes is a violation of USB standards. Rethink Wireless adds that this is “quite an extreme move” by Palm.

My take: Importantly, this is not a government action. Palm is actually pushing a different type of player to go after Apple. This sort of thing often ends up influencing government action. The pressure will be on Apple to settle with the industry body so as to avoid follow-on action by the government.

ComputerWorld: Obama administration, new legal research could jack up antitrust heat on Intel

Eric Lai describes how new energy from the Obama administration and new antitrust theories will change the rules of antitrust. He cites Intel as a target, but of course this affects the current iPhone/Google Voice brouhaha and Google itself, which is under antitrust scrutiny. Lai particularly cites possible antitrust effects of bundles such as phones and service packages, with iPhone/AT&T being only the leading example.

My take: An important article to read to understand the likely antitrust environment going forward, which will create both opportunities and concerns for Google. Google Voice and Android are a long way from any kind of monopoly, so they have a lot of room to run if the government tries to open things up. As DailyTech says separately, with reference to the Apple and Google’s still-interlocking directorates, “Google is in the sights of regulators. This is just the first of many instances where they are going to encounter regulatory scrutiny.”

UnStrung, the 4G Authority: AT&T, Apple & Google

Site Editor Dan Jones takes the occasion of the FTC’s letters to point out that the way forward for telcos is to accept “dumb pipes” status and offer creative service plans for different types of data. He cites Verizon Wireless as starting out in this direction.

My take: A useful indication of a possible different world in which voice is relatively unimportant in revenue terms.

CNET: IBM wants my phone data. I’ll happily give it more

Matt Asay offers lots of his personal data to help IBM Research tie together his IM, e-mail, phone, movement and purchasing histories to improve offerings to him and make his interactions easier. Asay points out that Tim O’Reilly has been discussing this for years.

My take: Google is not the only player trying to create a “personalized cloud” in which your data is used to do things for you and/or to you. Google Voice is of course a big new step in this direction. The effort by IBM may take some pressure off Google.

Washington Post: The iPhone Gets Easier to Dislike

Staff writer Rob Pegoraro – not a blogger drafted in by WashPo – takes the iPhone, AT&T and the App Store to task. Pegoraro cites Android and Pre as compelling alternatives. This is somewhat of a roundup article but a good one, including some analysis, and worth reading. He finishes by inviting readers to share their opinions, which may well lead to follow-on articles.

My take: It’s significant that the Post is taking this on directly. Press, public and government pressure on a company often go together, so Apple is getting into more trouble. Which means more pressure to reverse themselves on Google Voice and more running room for Android, even after a possible reversal by Apple.

eWeek: Network Neutrality: Game On for Open Networks

Roy Mark ties the FCC letters to the recent introduction of a network neutrality bill in Congress. He foresees a battle royal over the whole direction of US technology policy which will directly affect the mobile telephony world.

My take: Even the introduction of the bill is part of a changing environment. The industry will be under pressure to clean up its act, from Washington’s point of view, or face harsh legislation that will compel it to do so.

Quick Takes:

• WMExperts reports that Microsoft has offered a developers’ guide for porting iPhone apps to Windows Mobile. Maybe that will help bring a Google or third party Google Voice app to the platform.
• Blorge and others report on the banning of an App Store spammer with 900+ apps, engaged in dubious practices, as overdue and evidence that Apple was incompetent to approve all those apps before noticing anything was wrong. (My take: A bit of sympathy for Apple here. Even when they do the right thing, they’re wrong!)
• MacNewsWorld has a good and somewhat sympathetic explanation of “Why Apple Hates Jailbroken iPhones”, focusing on security problems that can emerge if more and more iPhones are jailbroken.

My overall view is that the US is headed toward broader wired and wireless broadband access and a “net neutrality” approach for cell phones too. Google Voice is perfectly suited to this new approach. The first-ever review of cell phones for their Google Voice capabilities, linked below, is a sign of this.  

Washington Post (TechCrunch article): Why the FCC Wants to Smash Open the iPhone

Erick Schonfeld sums up the Google Voice brouhaha well. and quickly ties the Google Voice rejection to the broader issue of wireless broadband Internet access. He sums up the questions asked by the FCC. But the headline really says it all.  

Washington Post: Google CEO Schmidt Quits Apple Board Amid Scrutiny

Franklin Paul and Gariel Madway sum up the news and issues well and point out that Apple COO Tim Cook can take up the empty seat on the board.  They point out that investors could see it as a positive – and both companies’ stock rose 2% just after.

PC Magazine: The Best Phones for Google Voice

Sascha Segan rates the best phones for Google Voice, giving high marks to three BlackBerrys and the myTouch 3G.

My take: A short article and not very incisive, but interesting as a very different way to rate cell phones.

Information Week: FCC Probes Google Voice Blockage

Marin Perez quotes Forrester analyst Charles Golvin as minimizing the likely impact of the FCC move and cites several recent instances of the FCC moving to open up access to mobile networks.

GigaOm: Interview with FCC Chairman Genachowski

Om Malik interviewed Genachowski last Thursday, which unfortunately was the day before the letters to Apple, AT&T and Gooogle over Google Voice. In the interview Genachowski points to other countries as having moved ahead of the US in telecomms regulation, and Om points out that they’re also ahead in competition. Genachowski points out that he’s hiring engineers, economists and entrepreneurs as well as lawyers to the 2500-person FCC, and hints that new laws will be needed to update the regulatory framework for the Internet age. He also mentions upcoming 4G as key.

San Jose Mercury News: FCC Chair Touts Broadband as Top Priority

The editors of the Mercury News met with Genachowski on Monday. He emphasized wider broadband access as perhaps an even greater concern than mobile telephony.

My take: This may be a false distinction; broadband access through mobile telephones brings the issues together, and tends to push cell phone service providers toward the “dumb pipes” role.

Public Knowledge: FCC and Congress Start Campaign For Open Internet

Public Knowledge Communications Director Art Brodsky describes his group’s advocacy for open Internet access through both cell phones and traditional broadband.

My take: This is the big battle into which many other stories will fit.

Forbes.com: Apple isn’t Evil for Rejecting Google Voice

In what’s almost a contrarian view, the writer points out that it’s sensible for Apple and AT&T to reject Google Voice. The idea is that, by taking money from AT&T for SMS and international calls, Google Voice undercuts the ability of the pair to offer iPhones for $99 – instead of the $500-$600 common in countries that don’t allow tight tying together of devices and service plans. (Another Forbes article makes the same point more pithily: “you get what you pay for”.) For an alternative approach, with distinctive phones for half the iPhone’s price, see here.

My take: The FCC seems to disagree. (The article was written before the FCC letters were announced.) And just because consumers benefit in one (important) way doesn’t mean that the deal that allows them to do so is legal. The article does inadvertently point out how hard it will be for the iPhone to gain traction in countries where it’s priced fairly.

Dashes.com: Apple: Secrecy Does Not Scale

Anil Dash writes a useful opinion piece on how Apple should be more open. He cites the expense of secrecy and the increasing difficulty of maintaining it.

San Francisco Chronicle: Google CEO Schmidt leaves Apple Board

Staff writer James Temple describes the departure of Google CEO Eric Schmidt from Apple’s board and how Apple attributes it to intensifying competition between the two. He reports analysts’ belief that government scrutiny of the relationship played a roughly equal role.Temple points out that the FTC has spent months investigating whether Schmidt’s and Genentech Chairman Arthur Levinson’s membership of both companies’ boards violates antitrust law. He then describes the Google Voice decision and other sources of tension. He leaves open whether Schmidt’s leaving is a focused effort to sidestep the antitrust issue or the beginning of a bigger rivalry.

My take: Very good roundup article. I’d additionally observe that “those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it”. “Interlocking directorates” have been a “trustbuster” target for a century, and for Apple and Google to dangle such a tempting target in front of the Feds has always been arrogant and stupid of both companies. Look for Levinson to resign from one of the boards soon to finish off the issue. (Genentech shareholders: he’s stupid, unethical and a tool, a dual-use one at that. Why is he your chairman?)

Business Week: Apple vs. Google: Tech’s Newest Rivalry?

Peter Burrows speculates that the Microsoft/Apple, Microsoft/IBM and Microsoft/Google rivalries will be followed by Apple/Google as the “new defining rivalry in tech”. He describes the very open vs. tightly controlled approaches of the two companies.

PC Magazine: The Google vs. Apple War Begins

Sascha Segan describes the US Government as basically in Google’s pocket, with CEO Schmidt as a technology advisor to Obama and Obama’s deputy CTO Andrew McLaughlin a recent former Google employee. He makes the case that the FCC investigation of the App Store is irrational as there is, in the big picture, plenty of competition. Blackberry is #1 in the US and Nokia globally, so Apple isn’t even #1, let alone a monopolist.

My take: A well-made case, though I disagree that no the Feds are in Google’s pocket and that no investigation into whether laws are being broken by Apple is needed.

MediaPost Blogs: FCC Questions Apple Ban of Google App

Writer Wendy Davis points out that advocacy group Free Press asked the FCC to investigate whether limitations on Skype’s usefulness on the iPhone (it’s WiFi-only) violated net neutrality principles. An AT&T senior executive was quoted at the time as saying AT&T had “every right” to decline to promote rivals, and also admitted to blocking 3G support the SlingPlayer television app, an interesting contrast to their current “it’s up to Apple” statements. Advocacy group Public Knowledge has cheered the move. The Electronic Frontier Foundation is asking the US Copyright Office to bless “jailbreaking” of iPhones.

My take: Apple’s response to the EFF has prompted it to make ridiculous claims that jailbroken iPhones could be used for terrorist cyberattacks on cell phone towers. (If the iPhone is a potential weapon of mass destruction, it shouldn’t be sold, and neither should any Android phone, etc.) Separately, Apple is accused of covering up problems with iPhones overheating and even exploding. The dustup over Google Voice is part of a host of problems for Apple.

eWeek: Apple’s Rejection of Google Voice Points to Just One Thing

Andrew Garcia speculates that Apple is working on a Google Voice-like service for MobileMe, occasioning the rejection of all Google Voice apps last week. He describes how podcast downloading and tethering were both blocked from the App Store before then being offered by Apple.

My take: Interesting speculation, only time will tell if it’s right. I would guess not. A Google Voice-like service would lose a good chunk of its appeal if it was tied to one vendor, even if that’s a giant in the market like Apple.

Switched: Is Apple More Evil than Microsoft?

Terrence O’Brien asserts that Apple is less open than Microsoft, on both the Mac and the iPhone; that Apple copies other companies too; that Apple are “jerks” for going after jailbreakers and shutting down a successful Mac rumor site; that Apple doesn’t “do” charity like Microsoft (let alone Bill Gates).

My take: Interesting complement to Chris Dannen’s Seven Reasons to Ditch the iPhone, published yesterday. (An article that made Digg’s Top 10 for the week, after only one day in circulation.)
 
StorefrontBacktalk: The New Mobile Landscape: Google Quits Apple Board

Evan Schuman mentions Schmidt’s departure, then anticipates mobile commerce (M-Commerce) as the “next big thing” in retail. This is actually buying from your cell phone.

Barriers are said to be lack of standardization – of URLs, of how the GUI works, of where on an e-commerce site a customer would find the link. The iPhone is described as the most m-commerce-ready phone, and Apple, being the leader, as the most resistant to “lowest common denominator” standardization. Google is described as the open standards advocate.

My take: I don’t know if m-commerce is on the principals’ minds here, but interesting as to what the future will bring.

The Ski Channel: Google vs. Apple – Let the Games Begin

An unsigned article relates the Apple/Google tensions to skiing at Mammoth Mountain and proposes a Winter Games between the companies to settle things.

Also of interest

• A Forbes writer calls Apple the world’s most discreetly feminine brand. I wonder how much Google Voice will appeal to men vs. women as its uptake grows. Of course, with iPhone adoption hindered by Apple’s move, growth will be stronger on the more likely male-heavy BlackBerry and Android platforms.
• Another Forbes writer sees Apple as having the advantage over Google in their newly competitive relationship, with Apple ahead on operating systems and mobile phones, while Google leads in Web browsers.

FastCompany: Seven (More) Reasons to Ditch Your iPhone

Regular FastCompany contributor (and my Google Voice for Dummies co-author) Chris Dannen points out that it’s been a tough week for iPhone users, what with the Google Voice apps being pulled. He points out seven reasons to ditch the iPhone, including the FCC request for information, hacker attacks, Apple pulling the Google Voice apps (and telling developers to pay the refunds), the messy arrangement of apps on the iPhone, the messy arrangement of apps in the App Store, better phones running Android and better connections and cheaper plans from – well, almost anyone but AT&T.

Dannen admits that he’s a fan, using an iPhone 3GS now and the previous models before that. His point is that, when he and other die-hards start looking hard at alternatives, Apple should pay attention.

National Business Review (New Zealand): If Skype goes, what would fill the gap?

eBay is looking to float Skype in an IPO that might be worth US$4B, points out blogger Mitchell Hall. But the original developers of Skype want to buy back the company – and are the owners of the technology license Skype uses to operate. eBay is frantically working to develop new underlying technology that doesn’t violate patents, but both that effort and negotiations between the parties fail, that could do in Skype. If Skype fails, that would leave a big hole that Google Voice could fill by expanding its capabilities.

My take: Skype’s complete failure is unlikely, as that doesn’t serve the interest of any of the stakeholders. What is likely is a game of chicken; indeed, it’s already begun. The drama will undermine Skype and put a positive light on competing solutions like Google Voice and more direct competitors such as Gizmo5, which already is well integrated into Google Voice.

CircleID, Internet Infrastructure: Some Unsolicited Advice for AT&T re Google Voice

Blogger Rob Frieden describes the downside of AT&T’s claim that it had nothing to do with Apple’s decision to reject and remove Google Voice apps. In taking this position, AT&T is putting itself in a box as a wireless common carrier. In this classification, they’d be closely regulated. AT&T usually emphasizes higher-level functions such as information processing and content access to position themselves as a multi-dimensional company not subject to tight restriction.

My take: AT&T could win the battle, escaping sanctions for this decision, and lose the war to avoid tight regulation. Or it could even lose the battle and lose the war.