The issue of how openness of networks should be defined by regulators, suppliers and operators has once again come into focus as the FCC considers complaints by Google that Apple has restricted Google Voice from being available for the iPhone. AT&T has responded that they have not stipulated that Google Voice or other applications cannot run on their network so long as they adhere to security and service agreement requirements. (see ATT's response letter to the FCC Google Voice inquiry):
FCC, "Question 1(a). What role, if any, did AT&T play in Apple’s consideration of the Google Voice and related applications?"
AT&T, "AT&T had no role in Apple’s consideration of Google Voice or related applications."
Apple's response is that they have not made a decision yet. But they say that Google Voice imposes a user interface that is different than the iPhone and that it replaces core voice telephone capability:
"FCC, Question 1a. Why did Apple reject the Google Voice application for iPhone and remove related third-party applications from its App Store?"
Apple, "Contrary to published reports, Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application, and continues to study it. The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone’s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone’s core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail."
This argument hinges on the operative word 'replaces' and can be attuned to imposition of an application in the PC environment. While the mobile and PC environments have been distinct in the past, this is not necessarily the world we all live in today.
From my understanding of how Google Voice works on the iPhone it is as an individual application chosen by the user from among others. As such, to say that it replaces the telephone capabilities of the iPhone is an overreaching attempt at exclusion. That is like saying "we have a fair and open applications environment so long as you don't compete with our core applications." If that is the case,gGiven the shape of the delivery model and prior FCC rulings, I don't think that this argument will stick. In the least, the FCC is likely to require Apple to set guidelines for what constitutes 'replacement' of their core interface and apps and then allow Google and others to be given the opportunity to use the interface at user's discretion. Its speculative but my guess is 90% odds Google will prevail on being able to be offered as app that runs on the iPhone. Perhaps after some modifications. Google Voice on a the web and other SmartPhones do not appear to be a problem: it does not 'replace' regular phone service or user interface on other access devices.
Much more hangs in the balance than whether this single application runs on a currently popular mobile device:
The Obama administration is broadly considered to favor more open access and competition among suppliers and operators. Advisers who now work for the administration had been known previously to have favored a more aggressive stance on FCC decisions including the wholesale access provisions for the C-Block 700MHz auction.
What Apple has done is punted to avoid the FCC coming down with a decision which would set precedence for the future. Apple would rather say "What problem? These things take time. And it isn't that we object to competition from alternative voice and other applications, it is that Google is messing with the interface so they might bruise our Apple."
The issue goes far beyond Apple to how open and transparent and fair the qualification process is for open development platforms and apps store placement. This is an ongoing issue that stems from evolution of the supply ecosystem of the broadband wireless Cloud. This has ramifications for all other operators in the U.S. and can influence regulations and commercial development internationally. To a large extent the commercial trends push for the innovation open development unleashes and attempts to confine it are likely to eventually backfire. In the near term Apple hopes to hold onto the role as surrogate for operator control of the walled garden, a position that has become less viable for mobile operators, handset and integrated network suppliers.
If the FCC requires Apple to admit applications where will it end? Apple and other apps stores and device manufacturers restrict applications that are packaged to be available for specific OS and devices used on mobile networks. Would the ruling result in a flood of appeals to the FCC for similar action or will a higher degree of visibility into the selection criteria and process for 'open' apps dev.
In the long run we think commercial forces will pressure increased openness because open development is the engine that will drive subscriber loyalty through greater choice and innovation. But the industry is structured around simple voice, messaging that has the inevitable sway to retain control.
