Comments on: Apple Rejected Google Apps Because They Were Better

By: Official Google Latitude App Arrives in App Store: Apple «

Official Google Latitude App Arrives in App Store: Apple « — Mon, 13 Dec 2010 15:01:05 +0000

[...] for the iPhone platform, but Apple apparently didn’t agree. The Mac-maker originally blocked the release of a native app, citing possible user confusion about whether Latitude was actually the Maps app. So instead users [...]

By: PolicyMap » So Why Did Apple Buy a Mapping Company?

PolicyMap » So Why Did Apple Buy a Mapping Company? — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:03:44 +0000

[...] ongoing legal fight between Apple, Google and the FCC over rejected apps on the iPhone App Store is well-known, as is Google CEO Eric Schmidt’s departure from Apple’s board in [...]

By: McGuire’s Law » Blog Archive » Big Bell Dogma: September 2009

McGuire’s Law » Blog Archive » Big Bell Dogma: September 2009 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:29:45 +0000

[...] Apple Rejected Google Apps Because They Were Better [...]

By: Michael O'Connor

Michael O'Connor — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:36:19 +0000

But Apple itself has added Google Map views (and annotation ability for them) right into the OS specifically for developers to use within their apps. What are they supposed to do with this mapping ability we have been given, if not show maps and put markers for people and places on them?

By: Derek Kerton

Derek Kerton — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:04:52 +0000

Yes, but as a ‘sometimes’ developer, what this group ALSO wants is transparency, so they can make informed development decisions.

It may be Apple’s sandbox, but capricious and whimsical approval processes don’t encourage innovative apps.

The small amount of apps they block isn’t enough to stem the flow of new apps, but it is a frustration and friction. It will shift some developers to other platforms. What will be the effect if Apple rejects all apps that:
- lower the phone bill of the user?
- are better than bundled iPhone apps?

Well, those apps will end up on WinMo, RIM, and Android, making those platforms more attractive to users. Apple will acquiesce, and become more open. Why not just get ahead of the curve and open up now?

By: Tim F.

Tim F. — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 02:27:58 +0000

I think the proof is in the: Apple and Google continue to talk. (People forget there is the web app.) Google could agree to scale back the app and have it published. (People have already set this up as Apple capitulating — not winning the negotiations.) Apple could even build it in with Google as a core app/option first before allowing Google to have their own standalone and an API (which remains undocumented because Google isn’t sure what they own yet — I presume as much as anyone presumes evil). I hope we see an API. I think it’s too early to be hysterical about very transformative and rapidly evolving technology and business.

By: Tim F.

Tim F. — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 02:20:40 +0000

Apple would partner with Microsoft or AOL/MapQuest for the fun of it, and make Google look like the monopolist. Am I the only one that heard Steve say they wouldn’t permit some apps that competed with core functions? I’ve always understand the “rejection” to be conditional based on it being “too good” at competing with “core functions.” I still don’t see or understand the “underhandedness” of Apple — they always said how they were going to run the show, and it’s a hell of a show.

By: Tim F.

Tim F. — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 02:12:45 +0000

Maps and Latitude are both maps. That’s already confusing. Add in Latitudes ability to track your contacts and your location, and that Google may or may not “own” your data. That seems fine enough to me. It is available as a web site. Both apps are very difficult and complex issues. This discussion contains far too much simplifying.

By: Gib Wallis

Gib Wallis — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 20:54:13 +0000

It seems obvious that the headline for this article is both link baiting & also very true. The two need not be mutually exlusive.

As for Lava’s comment about the nuance of “not approved” versus “rejected” — that’s definitely an attorney minded response & is probably exactly how Apple parses it.

But think — Apple didn’t approve Google’s application in this instance & gave them reasons — it has better feautures. These same features that are intrinsic to the application & available on all competing smartphones.

If Google rewrote & resubmitted to remove all their application’s major features, it wouldn’t be the same application on all platforms. It would be a hobbled, lesser application.

By making the acceptance contingent upon Google making it into another application with the same name is just a round-about way of rejecting the application.

I’m curious what Google’s terms are for the iPhone Maps application & if when they’re up for renewal. They could rewrite their Google maps web-side to be incompatible or hobbled on the iPhone so there wouldn’t be any “confusion.”

By: Sam D. Park

Sam D. Park — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 01:46:37 +0000

Bell Laboratories (also known as Bell Labs and formerly known as AT&T Bell Laboratories and Bell Telephone Laboratories) is the research and development organization of Alcatel-Lucent and previously of the American Telephone & Telegraph Company (AT&T).
(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Labs )

Unix (officially trademarked as UNIX, sometimes also written as Unix with small caps) is a computer operating system originally developed in 1969 by a group of AT&T employees at Bell Labs, including Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie, Brian Kernighan, Douglas McIlroy, and Joe Ossanna. Today’s Unix systems are split into various branches, developed over time by AT&T as well as various commercial vendors and non-profit organizations.
(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix )