Newman Zone

I admit, Google Voice is a bit geeky. Most people think it’s a replacement for Skype. It’s not.

Skype enables you to place calls from a computer using Voice over IP (VoIP). When you initiate a Google Voice call from a web page, GV calls your phone and connects you to the number you dialed. (You can also place a call by phoning your Google number and pressing 2 at the prompt.) The confusion results because Google Voice also lets you make international calls at rates that are competitive with Skype’s.

One feature my wife just discovered is that Google Voice also lets you make free long distance calls within the continental United States. For example, let’s say you don’t have long distance on your land line. You can use Google Voice to make long distance calls and you’re only charged for calling a local number (assuming your Google number is a local call).

So why is AT&T afraid of Google Voice on the iPhone? You don’t save any cell phone minutes by placing long distance calls with Google Voice. Some have speculated that it’s because GV offers free SMS, which cuts into AT&T’s bottom line. But there are plenty of other iPhone applications that offer free text messaging.

Is it because Google Voice lets you make cheap international calls? Skype does this too - without using any cell phone minutes.

The only possible conclusion is that AT&T is simply afraid of Google Voice’s potential. It’s a preemptive strike against Google, and it will fail for the same reason the RIAA’s lawsuits failed to stop music piracy. You can’t stop progress.

If you want to know more about placing calls with Google Voice, check out the following video:

To add insult to injury, the Google Voice developers whose apps were unceremoniously yanked from the App Store this week are now getting “flooded with refund requests from customers.” Because Apple retains its 30% commission, even when the buyer receives a complete refund, this will increase the financial hardship to developers like Sean Kovacs.

Everyone blames AT&T for the demise of the Google Voice apps, but Apple made its own bed by giving AT&T complete control over what does and doesn’t appear in the App Store. Clearly, this is a tipping point for Apple. Prior to this week, I was holding out for a Verizon iPhone. At this point, it’s clear that Apple is a big part of the problem, and a new carrier won’t solve anything.

For more on this, see:

• Yeah, there’s an app for that. But for how long, and at what cost?
• There’s No App for That
• iPhone devs killing future apps over Apple policies, pricing
• The Emperor’s New Clothes

Back in April, I recommended Sean Kovacs’ GV Mobile app for the iPhone. Today, I learned that Apple has removed GV Mobile from the App Store. While I’m glad I purchased the app before this happened, I am disappointed because this means I can expect no updates to the product I paid for.

Then I read that Apple rejected the official Google Voice app six weeks ago, even though similar apps exist for the Blackberry and Google Android.

While I love my iPhone, this anticompetitive behavior on the part of Apple is starting to smack of United States v. Microsoft. Beyond all the ethical, antitrust considerations, it’s just bad business. Customers will not purchase applications if they can be yanked from the App Store on Apple’s whim. If the app no longer exists, you get no updates and you get no customer support from its developer(s).

I know iPhone developers whose apps have not been approved. Or whose apps have been approved and then subsequently rejected. There’s little or no explanation from Apple, leaving the developers to guess what prompted the rejection, revise and resubmit the app, cross their fingers, and hope for the best.

It’s time for Steve Jobs to write another open letter. This time, instead of pleading with the record labels to end DRM, he needs to convince his own employees to free the App Store from its Draconian policies. The excerpt below, in Jobs’ own words, could just as easily apply to what’s now happening with the App Store:

“If anything, the technical expertise and overhead required to create, operate and update a DRM system has limited the number of participants selling DRM protected music. If such requirements were removed, the music industry might experience an influx of new companies willing to invest in innovative new stores and players. This can only be seen as a positive by the music companies…Convincing them to license their music to Apple and others DRM-free will create a truly interoperable music marketplace.  Apple will embrace this wholeheartedly.”

Mr. Jobs, tear down this wall!