So the empire strikes back. The semi capricious nature of the Apple (AAPL) Application Store has stoked the ire of more than a few developers as well as anxious customers in the past. With the recent booting of Google's (GOOG) VOIP application off the Apple Store, AT&T (T) might have gone one bridge too far.
In the past, AT&T (through Apple) has argued that severe bandwidth justify keeping applications off the network. Because AT&T has had limited competition and internet application growth has been impaired by backward usage and control policies, they haven't had to worry about actually keeping their network in the 21st century until recently. The iPhone opened the door just a little bit in terms of what these devices can do and customers want to actually use them which has strained AT&T's backward and poorly engineered network.
In this particular case, using the argument that it taxes a still "developing" network is nonsense. VoIP applications are relatively non bandwidth intensive. Voice is nothing compared to video that one might get on the MLB app that streams live baseball games to your iPhone.
The interesting dynamic here is that the issue really isn't with Apple, it's Apple's partner AT&T that is trying to either get applications modified or removed entirely. Usually the modification is designed to push the data onto WiFI and subscribers typically play a game of installing one of the various commonly available hacks to trick the iPhone into thinking that 3G is WiFI.
There is a little bit of an interesting irony in all of this. Namely, it's Apple's choice of establishing an "App Store" that is really causing this problem since it serves as a gateway for approval for all applications. For example, if you look at other devices that don't have App Stores, many of these same applications are available on AT&T just on other devices (for example Sling Player which is exceedingly data intensive).
The existence of the App Store allows AT&T to use it as a conduit to prevent apps that it either doesn't like or doesn't want on its network from being installed on the iPhone.
What's going to save us all here? A migration to LTE for all the competing networks as soon as possible. Verizon (VZ) is rushing its build out out for next year. With T-Mobile, AT&T and Verizon all on the same network, there will be more competition as the same devices leverage the same air interface.
While I am a free market guy, the hoarding of wireless licenses by four dominant wireless carriers makes regulation of those licenses essential and the FCC is doing what should have been done years ago. There used to be a somewhat constraining cap on the amount of licenses carriers could hold but this regulation was essentially gutted. Carriers need more than the old rule specified for 4g to provide voice, fixed data and mobile data and video but right now several carriers are holding licenses just to keep out competition.
The real answer here is to liberate one nationwide license from Verizon (they are not going to do anything good with it) and auction off at least one more nationwide footprint to a new entrant. Two new and nationwide broadband competitors with fixed and mobile data offerings will allow for more innovation to a still stagnating and backward industry.
FCC Letter below.
Catherine A. Novelli, Vice President
Worldwide Government Affairs
Apple Inc.
901 15th Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005
RE: Google Voice and related iPhone applications
Dear Ms. Novelli:
Recent press reports indicate that Apple has declined to approve the Google Voice application for the iPhone and has removed related (and previously approved) third-party applications from the iPhone App Store. In light of pending FCC proceedings regarding wireless open access (RM-11361) and handset exclusivity (RM-11497), we are interested in a more complete understanding of this situation.
To that end, please provide answers to the following questions by close of business on Friday, August 21, 2009.
1. Why did Apple reject the Google Voice application for iPhone and remove related third-party applications from its App Store? In addition to Google Voice, which related third-party applications were removed or have been rejected? Please provide the specific name of each application and the contact information for the developer.
2. Did Apple act alone, or in consultation with AT&T, in deciding to reject the Google Voice application and related applications? If the latter, please describe the communications between Apple and AT&T in connection with the decision to reject Google Voice. Are there any contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T that affected Apple’s decision in this matter?
3. Does AT&T have any role in the approval of iPhone applications generally (or in certain cases)? If so, under what circumstances, and what role does it play? What roles are specified in the contractual provisions between Apple and AT&T (or any non-contractual understandings) regarding the consideration of particular iPhone applications?
4. Please explain any differences between the Google Voice iPhone application and any Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) applications that Apple has approved for the iPhone. Are any of the approved VoIP applications allowed to operate on AT&T’s 3G network?
5. What other applications have been rejected for use on the iPhone and for what reasons? Is there a list of prohibited applications or of categories of applications that is provided to potential vendors/developers? If so, is this posted on the iTunes website or otherwise disclosed to consumers?
6. What are the standards for considering and approving iPhone applications? What is the approval process for such applications (timing, reasons for rejection, appeal process, etc.)? What is the percentage of applications that are rejected? What are the major reasons for rejecting an application?
Request for Confidential Treatment. If Apple requests that any information or documents responsive to this letter be treated in a confidential manner, it shall submit, along with all responsive information and documents, a statement in accordance with section 0.459 of the Commission’s rules. 47 C.F.R. § 0.459. Requests for confidential treatment must comply with the requirements of section 0.459, including the standards of specificity mandated by section 0.459(b). Accordingly, “blanket” requests for confidentiality of a large set of documents are unacceptable. Pursuant to section 0.459(c), the Bureau will not consider requests that do not comply with the requirements of section 0.459.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.
Sincerely,
James D. Schlichting
Acting Chief
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Federal Communications Commission
Disclosure: No positions
