Apple can selfishly do things with its App Store that Microsoft cannot
7/29/2009 |
The recent news that the Google Voice iPhone application has been blocked from the iTunes App Store has created quite the stir.
Readers are somewhat correct to suggest that this move is more likely driven by AT&T than by Apple itself. However, keep in mind that Google Voice aims to insulate the user experience from the underlying phone. While the iPhone is much more than a phone, if Google is successful in owning the phone-related experience on the iPhone, Apple loses a core value proposition of the device.
[ Also on InfoWorld: "Google Voice apps removed and rejected from App Store" | Keep up with the latest open source news with InfoWorld's open source newsletter and topic center. ]
This is why I don't buy the idea that AT&T is wholly to blame for the Apple decision. I can't understand how Apple doesn't have the bargaining position versus AT&T to act on behalf of Apple customers -- Apple does. This decision helps protect AT&T's and Apple's value proposition to users. Apple acted out of self-interest. I can't blame the company since Apple is not a charity. But Apple users, and others, should take note and adjust their purchase behavior and legal oversight accordingly, if at all.
Apple pulled Google Voice-enabled applications from the App Store because they "duplicate features that come with the iPhone." The fact that Apple can limit the types of applications available to iPod/iPhone users on the basis of duplicate features that Apple provides or will provide in the future -- GPS navigation an example of the latter -- is mind boggling. Can you imagine Microsoft not allowing Firefox, Opera, or Safari on Windows computers because these products duplicate features that come with Windows? Say what you will about Microsoft's competitive practices, but excluding an application on the basis of providing a similar capability seems awkward in the software industry where there are 42 different ways of achieving anything.
|
|
© 2015 cscoit.com