<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>she say what? &#187; Economy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://shesaywhat.com/category/news/world/econ-world-current/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://shesaywhat.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Aug 2009 18:01:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>What&#8217;s so menacing about Google Voice?</title>
		<link>http://shesaywhat.com/79/menacing-gv/</link>
		<comments>http://shesaywhat.com/79/menacing-gv/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 19:28:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Lia N.</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Consumer Electronics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shesaywhat.com/?p=79</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;ve been doing what everyone else has: reading opinions about Apple, about how AT&#038;T is comparable to Jack Nicholson&#8216;s character in A Few Good Men, and how Google is a delicate flower in all of this. It is true: Apple&#8217;s policy of rejecting applications that duplicate services hasn&#8217;t been applied uniformly. Apple has approved VoIP [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://shesaywhat.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/14voice02-650-150x150.jpg" alt="Google Voice" title="Google Voice" width="150" height="150" class="alignright size-thumbnail wp-image-96" />I&#8217;ve been doing what everyone else has: reading <a href="http://gigaom.com/2009/07/28/google-voice-iphone/" target="_blank">opinions about Apple</a>, about how <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/28/best-comment-ever/" target="_blank">AT&#038;T is comparable to Jack Nicholson</a>&#8216;s character in A Few Good Men, and how <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/27/apple-is-growing-rotten-to-the-core-and-its-likely-atts-fault/" target="_blank">Google is a delicate flower</a> in all of this. It is true: Apple&#8217;s policy of rejecting applications that duplicate services hasn&#8217;t been applied uniformly. Apple has approved VoIP and roundabout text messaging apps in the past, and applications using Google Voice didn&#8217;t appear so different. Although the service&#8217;s feature set is quite basic right now (the usual VoIP, 3rd-party text messaging, visual voicemail), the scope of Apple&#8217;s move suggests they wants to avoid being vulnerable to potential service upgrades. So, what service features could the Google backbone be key to producing?<span id="more-79"></span></p>
<p>Google does have an ever-growing suite of applications, and talented engineers creating and unifying them further. While Apple is a recognized innovator in the consumer product space, Google is the same for the space of internet services and applications. And there is <i>definitely</i> room for more innovation in the space of mobile services, and particularly VoIP technologies. While &#8220;regular&#8221; VoIP isn&#8217;t really a threat to AT&#038;T, the reason is that the user experience of VoIP is sub-par, even in those that have a wide set of services – they are usually not very well integrated with each other, or with the phone. With the advent of push technologies and Google&#8217;s gifted manpower, they are the company most likely to provide and support a service powerful enough to supplant native calling and texting. From that perspective, allowing Google Voice applications to remain in the store would be to leave a gaping hole in AT&#038;T&#8217;s defenses, which are already quite worn. But now that the FCC is involving itself, it&#8217;s not going to get easier for the cellular behemoth.</p>
<p>As far as the FCC goes, it&#8217;s interesting to see them stumble into the mobile space. Apple has been rejecting applications ever since the store was conceived of, and AT&#038;T has had a death grip on their iPhone exclusivity deal (which is also coming under fire). Furthermore, the mobile space has always been messy and frustrating – mobile service providers occupy the same circle of Hell as insurance agents and tax attorneys as far as consumers are concerned. As <a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2351125,00.asp" target="_blank">Sascha Segan</a> points out, there are bigger issues in the mobile space that really need to be tended to first:</p>
<blockquote><p>The FCC&#8217;s time could be much better spent on actual industry-wide, anti-consumer collusions like overcharging for individual text messages, locking people into contracts well beyond the point when they&#8217;ve paid off their phone subsidies, or making exclusivity deals that prevent rural users from getting access to particular phones.</p></blockquote>
<p>After all, such fundamental changes would allow consumers to easily switch to a phone they could install GV on, and this debacle would be irrelevant. FCC&#8217;s <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/31/fcc-takes-on-apple-and-att-over-google-voice-rejection/" target="_blank">James Schlichting points out</a> &#8220;pending FCC proceedings regarding wireless open access (RM-11361) and handset exclusivity (RM-11497)&#8221; exist, and it&#8217;s great to know that there are proceedings taking place. However, I&#8217;m surprised they aren&#8217;t focusing on those directly instead of sending letters to a company that is not on the decision-making end of wireless open access <i>or</i> handset exclusivity. I wouldn&#8217;t go so far as Segan to suggest that Eric Schmidt&#8217;s shoulder-nudge and wink-wink relationship with President Obama has played a role in the Apple smackdown, but since <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN1435603320080315" target="_blank">most FCC investigations go nowhere</a>, I wouldn&#8217;t rule it out as a passive aggressive way to get on Apple&#8217;s case.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://shesaywhat.com/79/menacing-gv/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

