Full FeedGet the government out of my iPhone
To be clear: I was disappointed Apple did not approve Google Voice apps for distribution in the App Store. I was more than disappointed—I began to see what I believe could be the unraveling of iPhone domination. No matter the level of our frustration with Apple, government has no business looking into this. If you were not aware, the FCC is looking into the rejection of Google Voice apps by Apple. At a time when surely there are other things in Washington that might have a little more importance than an iPhone application, do we really have the time, money and resources to put into even an informal inquiry? If the government answers to the people, can we not agree that there are more pressing matters?
Am I trying to shield Apple? Ha! They hardly need my help. No, what is happening is Adam Smith’s invisible hand moving the market. If consumers don’t like a product or its App Store approval process, they are free to purchase other products. Today, competing mobile operating systems are more than up to the task, such as Android, BlackBerry, and webOS.
Can you see the invisible hand moving the market? Absolutely. Take a look around the blogosphere and you’ll find angry prosumers perhaps changing their mind on the iPhone. Take TechCrunch’s Michael Arrington for example, he is done with the iPhone. And the straw that broke the camel’s back? You guessed it, the rejection of the Google Voice apps, now the subject of an informal inquiry into Apple by the FCC. “I’m abandoning the iPhone and AT&T. I will grudgingly pay the $175 AT&T termination fee and then I will move on to another device.”
My economics studies led me to this obvious conclusion: educated consumers, making educated choices move the market. Here we have blogs bashing Apple (rightly so) for rejecting something that excites a very small number of people (that ought to excite a bunch more). We have several competing phones and operating systems more than ready and able to deal with Google Voice.
This not-formal inquiry comes during a time when the FCC is looking deeper at exclusive deals that keep exclusive phones on a particular carrier. I’ve come out against this notion as well, fearing advanced development will diminish as the return to present such advancement declines with limits on exclusivity. Or put another way, ideas stay on white boards instead of in retail stores because they can’t fiscally justify the results.
Without the government’s help, we’ve booted “Baby Shaker” off the phone. With out the government’s help, we’ve gotten Skype on the phone (albeit limited). We’ve seen apps like Eucalyptus rejected then accepted thanks to public outcry. There is no reason to think we can’t do the same here. Educated consumer make educated choices. Apple needs to respect that or reap the consequences.
Source: [Wall Street Journal]
Keep up with the latest gadget goodness! - 
Subscribe to our feed
Macworld 2010
"Apple may not be at Macworld 2010, but Appletell is, bringing you news, photos and videos directly from the show floor and special events. Join us February 10-14 to see what new products 2010 has in store for Macintosh, iPhone, iPod and iPad (yes, iPad) owners."
Palm Pre Information & Updates
Palm just introduced their next-gen smartphone, the Palm Pre, and next-gen operating system, Palm webOS. Gadgetell's got the latest Pre and webOS information and news for you right here.
I would have to agree with some parts of this article, but not all. The question was asked with other pressing matters on the table does the gov need to take valuable time and resources to inquire about something like apps on the iPhone? Well the real answer to that is yes and no. On the one hand I believe that there has been some (if not from developers then the public in general) out cry about this. Enough to get the FCC looking into it. I personally would like to know what the real answer to the question is…. Why was this app, as well as others really rejected? As a paying customer I believe I have the right to know, and since I can’t get a direct answer from AT&T or Apple then maybe the FCC can. On the other hand this is not a really important issue and the gov would be better off spending it’s time and our money on more important things.
on August 2, 2009 at 02:31 PM - LINKMy “Invisible Hand” concept has undergone an Orwellian redefinition over the years to now mean little to no regulation. Not! In fact I warned against the perils of laisse-faire behavior. Evidently you missed that class.
Also, interesting that you believe the “Invisible Hand” (as you define it) fails when it comes to offensive apps such as “Baby Shaker”. Shouldn’t the “Invisible Hand” have resulted in poor sales instead of being pulled by Apple’s Politically Correct Police?
If consumers want high prices, poor service, and negligible innovation, then let’s encourage monopolies.
on August 3, 2009 at 12:48 AM - LINKWell done article JG!! Govt should be sitting back and evaluating that 900 BILLION health care plan that will put my great grandchildren in debt - I’m in my 30’s!! They should not dictate product development or even exclusivity agreements. We live in a capitalistic society. Who’s to say that Apple would’ve even taken a chance on the iPhone without exclusivity agreements to guarantee some type of a return on a very risky investment. Government involvement with stifle competition!! People are not thinking of the big picture here. They are wining about not being able to get an iPhone on Verizon or Sprint or T-Mobile (without jailbreaking) when they should be thinking about the bad precedent govt involvement in this single case will spin into more govt involvement in other issues. Just for the record I can’t stand AT&T and I have the GV Mobile app on my phone (bought before it was yanked by Apple) but I can’t support this step by the FCC because it has much larger impact for our county going forward. I would just simply switch phones if it made me that mad.
on August 3, 2009 at 09:21 AM - LINK