The FCC Friday sent out 3 letters to inquire about the nature of Apple's rejection of Google Voice (and Latitude) iPhone apps.
The actual letters are available as a matter of public record:
- FCC Letter to Apple LETTER (DA 09-1736)
- FCC Letter to AT&T LETTER (DA 09-1737)
- FCC Letter to Google LETTER (DA 09-1739)
It would appear from the letters that the FCC is really trying to determine is whether or not there was any interaction between AT&T and Apple regarding these rejections to see if anti-competitive practices are at play.
But if the iPhone were not so popular would the government care?
Or is there something even more interesting going on with the FCC and other public response to Apple's play?
One of the reasons why I am embracing the Android platform, is precisely to avoid situations like this—where a company can decide which software I can run on a device that is really becoming a "general use computer". The funny thing is, I am going to be switching off Verizon for the same reason. Verizon often locks down their phones to prevent installing additional applications, and often disables features delivered by the phone manufacturer. Example: I own a Verizon VX6800 which is manufactured by HTC (Titan II). It has a built in GPS receiver which Verizon has disabled. It then sells (for an additional monthly fee) a software Cell/GPS assisted service called VZ Navigator. I know for a fact that the GPS hardware in the unit works just fine, and that minus Verizon's crippling the Windows Mobile based phone would work with Google Maps and Google Latitude's GPS features. So here is a piece of hardware with a feature to access a "public" service (receiving wireless signals from GPS satellites) which the consumer cannot use as delivered by Verizon, and an additional pay service which adds back the feature (with excuses of added value I am sure). The carriers do similar things with disabling the "Internet Sharing" feature of Windows Mobile 6.x, which allows you to "tether" your notebook to the PDA Phone to gain Internet Access. This Microsoft delivered application for Windows Mobile is missing from the carriers release for the phone, so that they can provide additional Data Packages beyond the hefty cost of the unlimited data plan on the phone already.
So why is it that the FCC (and I wonder if it should really be the FTC?) never responded to what would appear to be similar patterns before?
Or is it because the phone has become a "computing platform" and our expectations for freedom on such platforms are in line with the "defacto practice" during the PC revolution?
A cell phone becomes a rather personal thing. When T-Mobile launched the name and campaign for the new replacement for the G1, the MyTouch 3G we all thought it was a bit cheesy. They focused on personalization with custom skins and layouts available. But now they may look like marketing geniuses, in the light of what is now happening to Apple. American consumers don't like being told what they can't do with something they have bought!
Imagine being able to create a phone as individual as you are. One that you can make completely your own —inside and out—with dynamic apps, one-of-a-kind homescreen themes and exterior shells and gel skins. The T-Mobile® myTouch™ 3G makes it possible.
Source: from http://www.t-mobilemytouch.com/
Wasn't this the same promise of the personal computer? One that Apple forged with the Apple I, and later IBM with the PC JR?
Though certainly computer manufacturers and operating system vendors are able to warn consumers about installing software that is not certified on their platform or hardware, the consumer has in practice been able to install software as they see fit. Even before the Internet many of us (albeit young geeks at the time) were happily installing software we were downloading from BBS' over modems.
Isn't the real news here that consumers (even those in the government who are probably personally agitated as well) are finally realizing that closed and exclusive distribution channels which have been the staple for Apple are contrary to what they are used to? I have been waiting for this for some time. iTunes is not an open web based store, its an exclusive store that you can only access with a client provided by Apple. They probably have a very strong case to make with the FTC against the FCC that they have the right to choose whichever products they want to sell in their store. If I am a store owner, and I think selling a particular product is contrary to my profitability then who says I have to sell it?
The cell phone is getting to that place where the device is seen as a commodity, a platform for getting life done. Apple made a great product that showed us what a phone can do beyond making calls. Though there were other PDA and Smart Phones before it, Apple's engineering prowess, marketing gusto and developer buy-in launched us forward.
So what changed?
This is the first time that consumers have desired an application from another favorite brand (Google) for their favorite platform and have been told no. Suddenly, they realize what some have known for some time. That Apple did not want to open up the iPhone platform wide to developers from the start. That control and exclusive distribution is how they have made their comeback with the iPod.
Imagine this: You sell a device which can play music, some of which is exclusively distributed via a store that you run, and to get the music onto the device you need to use software that they also provide which is also the store. It is end-to-end exclusive distribution. Its the hardware AND the software that Apple wants to sell... exclusively.
Even Microsoft, whom many have struggled with in terms of openness, interoperability and anti-competitive practices do not license every piece of software that can be used with Windows. Oh, they have certainly fiddled with to make sure their software ends up on manufacturers devices, but in the case of Apple with the iPhone, they are the Device Manufacturer, the Operating System Vendor, and the exclusive retailer for all software for the device.
Did you know that iTunes didn't even support subscribing to "Podcasts"
until version 4 because it basically went "around" Apple's lucrative
exclusive distribution channel for content? The phenomenon happened in
spite of them, and they embraced it when they saw that it sold more
iPods.
The precedent set by the separation of hardware, operating system, vendor, and software stores over the last 20 years, let alone the freedom experienced because of the Open Standards like the Web itself is irreversible. Consumers always want freedom of choice. Right now their desires are in conflict, the desire for a great device vs. their desire for an open platform. For experts, the desire is shifting toward open. It is arguable that this sort of thing happens in any emerging market, and did with computers as well. Apple has the advantage of being first to market. What they do next will determine whether they remain a nich player (as they did in the early 90s), or whether they become dominant. Elitist approaches work for a season, but if they don't change their ways (and that goes for the AT&T's and Verizon's of the world as well), they will miss the boat. Android will continue on its path to becoming the open mobile computing platform that will be in most of the worlds hands.
It should be noted, that I am not anti-Apple. I own a couple generations of iPods and have some fond memories on the Apple IIe. And actually, I have just spent all week at a conference using for the first time, what I think is the finest piece of personal computing hardware and operating system combination I have used in my life—the new MacBook Pro with OS X. Not only was I able to peek under the hood and see lots of old Open Source friends in OS X, nothing preventing me from downloading and installing software from anywhere I wanted to on the Web. I am using it now to write this blog post. I haven't once launched the iTunes music store, yet I installed 30 or so applications.
Why should a phone be any different?
