Apple Rejected Google Voice, Says Google

Google has made their letter to the FCC public, revealing that Google Voice was indeed rejected by Apple.

When we submitted our letter on August 21, we asked the FCC to redact certain portions that involved sensitive commercial conversations between two companies -- namely, a description of e-mails, telephone conversations, and in-person meetings between executives at Google and Apple.

Shortly afterward, several individuals and organizations submitted Freedom of Information Act requests with the FCC seeking access to this information. While we could have asked the FCC to oppose those requests, in light of Apple's decision to make its own letter fully public and in the interest of transparency, we decided to drop our request for confidentiality. Today the FCC posted the full content of our letter to their website.


The reasons Apple gave Google for not approving Google Voice and Latitude can be found below. You can read the entire letter here.

Apple's Explanation for Rejection of the Google Voice Application
Apple's representatives informed Google that the Google Voice application was rejected because Apple believed the application duplicated the core dialer functionality of the iPhone. The Apple representatives indicated that the company did not want applications that could potentially replace such functionality.

Apple's Explanation for Rejection of the Google Latitude Application
Apple's representatives informed Google that the Google Latitude application was rejected because Apple believed the application had the potential to: (i) replace the preloaded maps application, (ii) create user confusion since the preloaded maps application on the iPhone is a version of Google Maps, and (iii) offer new features not present on the preloaded maps application (which might also contribute to the user confusion referenced above). The Apple representatives indicated that the company did not want applications that could potentially replace such functionality and potentially create user confusion.

Read More