SuperSite Blog

Its very quiet in here.

Pingback from  Twitter Trackbacks for                 Google: Apple DID reject Google Voice. Thus, Apple DID lie to the FCC - SuperSite Blog         [winsupersite.com]        on Topsy.com

who really cares about this? 'game, set, match', paul?  Really, you need to get a life with this boring crap.  

I think we all (except for the fan boys ofcourse!)knew this once we saw AT&T denying any wrong doings!

It's quiet in here because no one but Paul really gives a rip. Even Paul's conflicted, because in his mind, both companies are equally evil, but the tipping point here is his personal animosity towards Steve Jobs (who must have once denied him a free iPod to review or something). The enemy of Apple is Paul's friend, so he'll give Google a pass for now. But don't fret. He'll be back with some fake outrage directed towards Google within the week.

Of course Apple is lying...

"who really cares about this?"

Apparently Paul does, probably because his hits have gone down since it's been a few days since he posted about the only thing that probably brings traffic to his opinions, Apple. He's gotta generate some more ad revenue so he can go over to Europe again and later on throw that out as if it makes his opinion carry more weight than anyone else in the world.

Let's be honest here. Was Apple in the wrong? Absolutely. Will this deter sales of the iPhone/iPod Touch in any way, shape or form? Absolutely not. The average consumer does not care about Google Voice or many of these rejected apps. They're not educated enough to even know about it, work customer support and you'll get a good idea that consumers are brain dead morons. To quote the late great George Carlin:

"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."

I want Google Voice on the iPhone and I'm pissed at Apple about this since it should be in the App Store. I'm not leaving the platform because of it and they're not going to lose much/if any marketshare because of this.

Every company is evil, I repeat EVERY company is evil. Anyone who thought Apple was good and suddenly is becoming the new Microsoft are blind. Apple has just been put under the microscope now that they've become a major player again in the last 5 years.

It's better to lie to the FCC than to lie to the EC!

It's better to lie to the FCC than to lie to the FBI (Netscape ring a bell? There's some excellent footage floating on the web and Discovery Science)

Face it, Paul: another FUD failed. Just like the Zune. Move to the other side b4 it's too late.

www.youtube.com/watch

www.youtube.com/watch

www.youtube.com/watch

www.youtube.com/watch

So...this is Bill 'Rain Man' Gates....

This is disturbing *** from a guy you trust your computer software with....

I think that the reason Paul posts all these Apple posts is to show and discuss his opinions on the dishonesty that Apple has. He does the same thing on Windows Weekly (great podcast, by the way) where he talks about all his anti-Apple topics with Leo who actually agrees with him. Why? Because he is not some blind Apple fanatic.

Yes, Apple are not saints. I learned that the hard way when I bought an iMac in 2007 which had a washed out screen and Apple refused to fix it because it was that way "by design". Now there is a legal case building against Apple for it. You can look it up.

Anyway, of course Apple lied to FCC. I do not think that it surprises anyone. Personally, I find it very pathetic that people attack Microsoft for running "unfair" business practices but when Apple does it, it is always "Apple is just doing things in interest of consumers" or "No, Apple is right, the other guy is wrong".

Good for you, Paul. Continue to expose Apple for what it is.

Did you even read your own headline?

An assertion. Followed by a "fact" pulled from the assertion.

Google may indeed be right. But, until that's proven, this headline is not.

How desperate can one man be to hate one company?

Blimey soon perked up!

So...

what if Google is lying?

Folks better start caring! Apple has for too long lied swindled and cyly denied wrongdoing, and you Apple sheeple give them a pass. Someone needs to continue with the bell call of this and hold Apples feet to the fire. Look at your own comments, conjecture, deflection and wild boasts.

Get a life sheeple, and let Paul discuss what he will on A Windows Site!!!  Your RDF attempts are really pathetic now.

According to several websites the issue is more complex than Paul "The world is black and white" Thurott would have us believe.

Essentially at this point we have three stories.  

Story 1.  ATT's, "We did not ask Apple to reject the Google Voice Ap."

Story 2. Goggle, "Apple rejected our Ap."

Story 3. Apple, "We have neither rejected nor accepted the ap yet."

Paul's hyperbole aside, I personally think that Apple should approve the ap.

Now the real issue, is should the iPhone be as closed a platform as it is?

Many who have grown up in the PC era decry the closed nature of the iPhone as though this is some affront to democracy and all things American.  The reality of course is the PC and the Mac OS for that matter that openly allows a variety of software to be installed upon it is truly an anomaly in technologic history.  

This anomaly is not necessarily a bad thing, and I would argue that the rapid development IT is largely a result of this anomaly.  That being said, the amount of hand wringing and crying over how "closed" the iPhone is, shows a lack of understanding concerning history in general and technological history in particular.

What is really funny about Paul's post is the fact that Apple is saying one thing, Google another, and ATT a third.  In my experience, unless we can see a slew of uncensored emails and voice mails that are independent of this he said she said bs we really don't know what happened or is happening.

This is why, we can say with certainty that MS during its anti-trust trial "lied" because the testimony frequently presented in court was contradicted by official MS memoranda.

If I were a journalist, with concern about fact based reporting and with understanding both my bias and presenting as unbiased a view as possible; I would hesitate to call someone a liar until I had a bit more corroboration than a single letter sent to the FCC. What is most disturbing about Paul's post is that he claims to be ALL of these things.  Yet, he continues to throw around the lie term in post after post.

Perhaps he feels that the potential libel suit is worth the risk considering both the number of page hits he gets and the reality that a public corporation (or a public person for that matter) must show actual malice in order to win a libel suit in the US.

Regards

Joe Dokes

This blog just gets worse and worse. I guess it's like tabloid newspapers, people like the trashy stuff.

Welcome to America, where everyone from the President to children lie. Yawn!

These blog posts reek of desperation. Obviously all on the prompting of the Borg.

Did you post about Apple's response to Google? No, of course not. That would mean fact checking. Not something that's done around these parts.

"Google may indeed be right. But, until that's proven, this headline is not."

Facts are not something that get in the way if this blog. Like a tabloid, put it out there first, then worry about it later. Actually, that's not accurate, since this blog does not worry about it later. Anytime something is FUD or incorrect, it just won't ever be mentioned again. And forget about a correction appearing, that's unheard of.

"How desperate can one man be to hate one company?"

As seen over the years, and more so recently, the answer is extremely desperate.

"what if Google is lying?"

Oh, Paul wouldn't consider that. That would get in the way of spreading more FUD. Supersite for Windows is like the Chinese press. What they publish, towing the company line, is mandated by the Communists. In this case, that's Microsoft.

The most amusing thing of all this, is Microtards calling Apple a liar. This from Microsoft? The pot calling the kettle black.

Microsoft is losing the people's mindshare. They are large, boring and the new IBM. No one cares. And that kills them. So they get their drones to spread FUD. Yes, they are the Communist in the tale.

I do wish there was a way to easily separate the "Windows News" stuff from the "Anti-Apple Rant" stuff. Whether or not I agree with their content, if I wanted to read about how awful Apple is I'd to go a site specificially for that. This is supposed to be Supersite for Windows, not "SuperSite Windows and Tirades Against Apple." Maybe you should start a new blog specifically for this stuff, Paul, and leave the legit Windows News stuff in this blog. It's getting tiring sifting through them.

Gee, Paul, where was your outrage against Microsoft when they were caught lying (a real "game, set, match) in their antitrust trial?

Hate to break it to you man, but your own writing is now a parody of your reputation.

And the whistling past the graveyard from the iPod/iPhone brigade continues.

Interesting that when they can't attack the facts they just attack the messenger. I've never seen so many people so dedicated to a blog that they so openly hold in contempt (for not agreeing with their party line)

It's the fact that Paul seems to be anti Apple on everything on his blog.  Anything that apple does positive Paul ignores.  What if Microsoft blocked Google Voice from it's windows mobile platform?  Paul would probobly praise Microsoft saying "It helps protect users by blocking this app" or some BS like that.

I'm particularly amused by the "We can't be certain whether its Apple, at&t or Google that's lying to the FCC or some combination of the three so let's attack Microsoft" responses.

Seriously funny.

- "Whistling past the graveyard".

Isn't that the hit tune playing on Zunes everywhere?

Googles response:

wireless.fcc.gov/.../9182009_Google_Filing_iPhone.pdf

Apple's response:

www.apple.com/.../apple-answers-fcc-questions

Another great article:

www.techcrunch.com/.../the-simple-truth-whats-really-going-on-with-apple-google-att-and-the-fcc

Lol.

Qualification #1 to be anti-microsoft:

Have absolutely no life but posting comments to a few users on a random Windows blog.

Looks like Apple isn't doing so well! haha!

Why doesn't the Zune have a built-in Microsoft Points to local currency converter?

A. The Tegra processor isn't equipped with a "silly" math calculator.

B. The "e" in "marketplace" is pissed and won't give up any space.

C. The program compiler only processes lines that are multiples of 500.

D. There's an "App for that"! *

* www.apptism.com/.../360-points-converter

>> A. The Tegra processor isn't equipped with a "silly" math calculator.

It does have a GPU (3D graphics), which you can't have without sometype of math processor somewhere - graphics are very math intensive.

>> C. The program compiler only processes lines that are multiples of 500.

What is that supposed to mean?

"who really cares about this? 'game, set, match', paul? "

This.

The reason this matters is simple.  Paul is a Microsoft guy.  He's never said or pretended otherwise.  Microsoft is still paying the price for the anti-trust fiasco.  Now, Apple is acting far, far worse than Microsoft ever did.  Think about it -- Microsoft didn't reject Netscape completely, they just threw their weight behind IE.  If Microsoft ruled Windows with the iron fist that Apple rules the iPhone (both the dominant products in their respective fields), people would be all over them.  However, when Apple does far worse, apparently nobody cares.

"Game, set, match." Only wishful thinking by Paul.

This investigation by the FCC is going absolutely nowhere.

Apple has "rejected" hundreds of apps, that were then later approved after modification and resubmission.

Although, Apple are probably the liars in this case, they merely have to tell the FCC that the Google Voice app has only been "rejected" for modification and resubmission later.

The Google apps will be approved in a different form, Apple will get what they want and therte won't be a dam the FCC can do.

"Game, set, match"

"i'm particularly amused by the "We can't be certain whether its Apple, at&t or Google that's lying to the FCC or some combination of the three so let's attack Microsoft" "

What about the fact that Paul is not certain either, yet he posts this FUD. Why don't you grow some and point that out? Oh, that's right, you're just another Micronerd. Stop posting you're pointless, biased lies and misinformation and don't be such a hypocrite. You spew such venom that no one cares to debate you on anything... because you have no idea how to do that.

Microsoft to bring out two iPhone competitors in Jan 2010.

www.9to5mac.com/microsoft-sharp-danger-pink-sidekick-turtle-pure

Project Pink. Appropriate really, as it's sure to fail. Windows Mobile is old and bad. Two mobile companies have already dumped the OS. More to come I'm sure.

Hey Mike,

This is not what they teach you in the MSCE-course. You're supposed to mention Microsoft and/or Windows coupled with positive affect words at least 9 times in each post.

You really haven't been paying attention lately, have you?

This is truely funny.

Here are the established facts.

Apple clearly rejected the Google Voice app and other related apps from the App Store.

Google says otherwise and giving related documentation to the FCC.

Yet if Google Voice wasn't rejected, shouldn't be on the App Store? Isn't that the ultimate proof? If its not approved and not in the App Store, it wasn't accepted.

That's pretty clear cut to me. Black and White. Even a child can figure that out. But apparently to our Mac fans here, it wasn't rejected. There are issues. Whatever. How much of Steve Job's rear end are you guys going to kiss? Apple's playing Microsoft's game and probably better than Microsoft ever did.

This is clearly anti-competitive behavior. Nothing like the Netscape case, but once again Apple is being protectionist because Google might have service/software that would undermine Apple or AT&T. I say let Google Voice have its due. Put it on the App Store for a trial run. If AT&T or Apple's solution isn't good enough, Google Voice should be a big hit. If it not, Apple doesn't lose a thing.

What troubles me is that we're seeing more and more anti-competitive behavior from Apple, and all the Mac guys are giving them a pass. But oh, not Microsoft. Microsoft is evil, right? Well, the more I look at what Apple's doing, the more I see a reflection of the mid 90's Microsoft.

I'm going to laugh my ass off one of these days if Apple is conivcted of such behavior. Then a lot of these guys will have to eat crow, again!

@lotsa,

Apple and Google got together in the first place for that very reason - hatred for Microsoft. Marriages of convenience happen in the tech world all the time, but it looks like the bromance between Eric Schmidt and Steve Jobs didn't last too long. Apple has been "Joe Wilsoned" by one of its own. I guess that is embarrassing -- especially when you consider the desperate attempts on the part of the robertsjoe-clones on this site to change the topic.  

Paul I think you've sent the usual suspects into an absolute frenzy with this, to the extent whereby they’re making numerous breathless posts within moments of one other  -- posts in which they:

1) Desperately change the subject by posting numerous links to Youtube videos 2) Commit glaring tu quoque fallacies 3) Espouse demented conspiracy theories in which Paul is controlled by the Illuminati, or the Jews, or whoever.

And so on and so on. I don't know if that was your intention, but, either way, that was the result.

I believe Apple is lying.  That said who really cares about this.  Outside of the tech world know one knows about it.  Even in the tech world only those that follow the iPhone or Google even know about this.

I dont know why Apple just does reject it and flat out state that the reason its rejected is that is duplicates core features.  I dont see how Apple does not have the right to reject it?  It might look bad to some, but its their hardware, os and store.

To be clear here on certain aspects of Microsofts many legal battles I dont agree with action taken against them, specifically the browser being included with the OS.

Wow Prs "the jews"......great statement, I sure mama Hitler would be proud.

>>when Apple does far worse, apparently nobody cares<<

Apple is much more benevolent that MS ever was.  LOL

@Flyer Mike

"Now, Apple is acting far, far worse than Microsoft ever did.

If Microsoft ruled Windows with the iron fist that Apple rules the iPhone (both the dominant products in their respective fields), people would be all over them."

You might just have a point..... if Apple's iPhone was "the dominant product". However it isn't. The majority of "smart" data connected phone in the US are NOT iPhones.

It's curious how you guys will exaggerate market share figures in order to "prove" that Apple is behaving illegally and with 'evil' intent.

>>You might just have a point..... if Apple's iPhone was "the dominant product". However it isn't. The majority of "smart" data connected phone in the US are NOT iPhones.<<

Yep, Paul just loves to make this point.

Can't have it both ways.

"rr0de74@live.com said: Wow Prs "the jews"......great statement, I sure mama Hitler would be proud."

I don't know what that means, I'm afraid.

I find it funny that Apple fans like to redirect the argument by bringing up Microsoft when it was in fact Apple's choice to get in bed with two gorillas that they clearly had no idea how to master - Google and AT&T.

AT&T never got in between them, but now Google left to get satisfaction with themself, and Apple is left lying in the mess they made (literally!)

"I dont know why Apple just does reject it and flat out state that the reason its rejected is that is duplicates core features.  I dont see how Apple does not have the right to reject it?"

It would outright prove that they are anti-competitive, which is what they're trying to avoid by beating around the bush.

"Outside of the tech world know one knows about it.  Even in the tech world only those that follow the iPhone or Google even know about this."

Are you making excuses for Apple now?  If consumers were offered the service, they would be able to reap the rewards of competition.  Instead, one company is trying to prevent competition, so consumers lose out.  You know the argument that you're making is exactly the reason why competition laws are made, right?

"Waethorn", that's the most disgusting analogy I've ever read. Paul, why do you stand for that kind of crap.

You're a pig, Wae.

"It would outright prove that they are anti-competitive"  I have never bought this argument.

I say do what you want with your own product, if people dont like it, they wont buy it.

I see anti-competitive as something like if Microsoft tells Dell "offer Windows as the default OS or only OS and you get it for very cheap per copy or dont and pay a lot"  That is one company forcing another company to do something.  Dell could refuse but then if HP or Lenovo could offer better pricing if they went along with the MS request.

I wonder if Toyota wanted install their radio's in Ford cars would Ford allow it?

rr0de

Wow do you have a LOT to learn about antitrust law.

You honestly think giving a volume discount is evil and anticompetitive but barring application from running on a supposedly open platform based on whether the application comes from a competitor is just fine?

That's amazing.

rr0de

To make your examples parallel...

You think it was evil for Microsoft to give a volume discount to people selling Windows on most of their computers.

You think it would have been just fine if Microsoft put code in Windows that kept it from running WordPerfect, dBase, Lotus 1-2-3, Netscape and Oracle because they could "what [they] want with [their] own product, if people dont like it, they wont buy it"

That's so amazingly backward I just don't know where to start.

Supporting Apple products (on the whole - the iphone being the dramatic exception) is really more about it "not being Microsoft" than it actually being a good product. It's more about perception of excellence rather than actual excellence.

Of the four friends I know that have macs (2 macbooks, 1 macbook pro and a 24" imac) - all four of them have complaints BUT all 4 of them rationalise the problems and they all make an excuse for Apple.

Apple has positioned itself brilliantly. It's the only company I know that has brainwashed it's consumers into believing that not knowing and not understanding is a good thing. The old joke being that someone goes into the configuration panel on their mac and their mac responds, "what are you doing? the settings are fine."

"These are not the droids you are looking for.."

I've always treated Apple with the same disregard that they deserve. They ship shiny things that allow silly, egotistical people to see their own reflection. The sad sad truth is that a large majority of Apple supporters don't see a great product - they see the great person that was so clever to buy that great shiny toy.

Good job. Enjoy paying your Apple tax :)

(of topic? sure.. hell fun to rant? definitely.)

SempSempSemp

"The sad sad truth is that a large majority of Apple supporters don't see a great product - they see the great person that was so clever to buy that great shiny toy."

That's only partly right in my experience. What I've seen most often in Mac users is technophobes who are insecure about their lack of technology expertise. For example, a friend with two Macs (one laptop and one tower) had to send them in a total of four times in one year for hardware problems. Her respons was that she must be doing something wrong for them to break and it was great that Apple only took a couple of weeks each time to ship her computer back under warrentee. She just assumed that Apple couldn't make bad hardware so it must be her fault and they were being kind to repair their defective hardware.

As another example, when Mac users I've worked with can't figure out some bizarre part of OS X they get even more insecure and assume that since Mac is "so easy" they must be really, really bad to not have it work. It's just inconcievable to them that the UI has faults so it must be them.

Apple makes a great living off of making users feel bad about themselves and about technology.

this is really an important issue and Paul is right to cover it and right to point out the facts.

he did create the facts. He reported them as they are.

Apple did lie to the FCC and about a very important matter that has the potential to impact all of us.

It is probable that the way we communicate using voice on mobile devices will change dramatically over the next ten years. It is likely that as we know them, carriers will no longer exist - we will all have entirely virtualized numbers and ubiquitous access to wireless broadband.

Apple's actions clearly were designed to prevent this inevitable advance in how we communicate to preserve mobile voice communications as they are.

Google is way ahead in this space and it's about time we faced the fact that while it will take time, voice communications will change very significantly over the next decade.

Where was this outrage when the BeOS was deliberately being obstructed by Microsoft?

Hypocrites.

@Semp and Mike G,

The exact opposite is possible for PC users - where each PC, if a person wants it, can have just about any configuration they wish and they can change it whenever they wish. It's very open and equally diverse.

Communications should be the same way - I mean the potential is so great and this is why this story is so important. I don't think people understand why Paul is covering it so carefully - it is not about Apple, really, but rather about how the company's behavior is blunting the realization of the potential in virtualized communications.

Eventually we'll have it and software will make it possible for any person speaking any language to speak with any other person speaking another other language on the planet - or any group of them. Can you imagine the implications of such a capability?

I meant to write: "he <Paul> DIDN'T create the facts. He reported them as they are."

"gadfly10 said: Where was this outrage when the BeOS was deliberately being obstructed by Microsoft?"

I don't know. Outrage from who?

"gadfly10 said: Hypocrites."

Who are hypocrites?

Wildly OT but to get the record straight...

BeOS died when Gil Ameilio at Apple, realizing that Apple didn't have the talent to produce a modern operating system after the Pink and Gershwin and Copland and Taligent fiascos, decided they would rather buy NeXT and get NeXTstep and Steve Jobs rather than buying Be and get BeOS and Jean-Louis Gassée.

Remember that Be was an Apple sister company that primarily designed for Apple PReP and CHRP hardware. It was only later, when they were desperate to survive, that they ported BeOS to Intel architecture PCs.

@Prs:

hypocrisy |hiˈpäkrisē|

noun ( pl. -sies)

the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

hypocrite |ˈhipəˌkrit|

noun

a person who indulges in hypocrisy; a Microsoft enthusiast.

And as an FYI followup, I bought a copy of BeOS and still have a BeOS t-shirt.

I think we'd have a lot better personal computing environment had Be survived either on their own or as Apple's new OS and had NeXT moved to being a nice object based development framework which was where it was heading prior to the Apple deal.

@mikegalos:

Microsoft forced contracted OEM's, who received significantly lower prices (volume discount) on Microsoft's Windows operating system, *NOT* to install any operating system (such as BeOS) besides Microsoft Windows.

Fact: Microsoft abused their monopolistic power.

And it's absolutely not OT. You're a hypocrite if you continue to criticize Apple (despite the fact that Apple does not restrict store such as Best Buy from selling the Zune or PlaysForSure devices.)

My Palm Pre has a few different Google Voice apps...1 in the official App catalog and a few others available to be sideloaded at precentral.net....which Palm and Sprint are in favor of.

--tayme

"gadfly10 said: @Prs: hypocrisy |hiˈpäkrisē|"

Perhaps you misread my post. It happens. I asked you who you were accusing of hypocrisy, not for a definition of the term. Further, how does anyone's hypocrisy (or the lack thereof) affect whether Apple lied to the FCC?

Pingback from  Mothers of Multiples Guide

Mike you say "volume discounts".  I meant load Windows only and get a discount period regardless of volume.  That is essentially forcing Dell to put Windows on the PC.  Now granted most of their customers wanted Windows.  Same goes for Intel.  It was long rumored the Dell and Intel were in bed, that Dell got serious discounts for not using AMD.

To me that should be illegal if that kind of stuff takes place because the larger company is using its size and wealth to kill off any competitors.

I would totally ok with Microsoft if they only allowed Microsoft applications to run on Windows.  Or charged other software vendors to make software for Windows.  

They do that now for the Xbox 360.  Microsoft must approve games on the 360, and Microsoft gets a piece of each game sold for the 360.   The Zune/Zune software, and the iPod/iTunes software are totally closed.  If people dont like that they are closed then they will choose something else.  In those cases it a matter of build a great product and they will come.  Dont and they wont.  In those cases no one is using their size and wealth to kill off any competitors or forcing anyone to choose their products.

Why cant Boeing sell its engines on AirBus planes?  Why wont AirBus allow that?  Is that Anti-Competitve?

I have always thought that MS should NOT have to include another browser in Windows.  They should not have to remove IE.  If they EU did not like that IE came with Windows, then use Linux.  Some places in Europe did.

gadfly,

Actually you're pretty seriously misinformed.

Microsoft did NOT prevent the installation of competitive operating systems or (as Apple is accused) prevent the installation of competitor's applications and, in fact, spent considerable amounts of money recruiting, training and assisting competitors to produce applications on Windows.

What Microsoft DID do was offer to large OEMs the choice of documenting how many copies of Windows they sold (and thus needed to pay for) or, if they only sold Windows, only having to document how many comptuters they sold since that would be the same number.

If they only sold Windows the documentation job was obviously easier, and saved both the OEM and Microsoft significant accounting and paperwork costs. The objection that you are apparently so concerned about was that it would have been better for Microsoft's competitors (but worse for their customers) if Microsoft had pocketed the savings rather than passing them on to the OEM and indirectly to the customer. Perhaps you think that saving money for the user by passing on savings from bureaucratic efficiency is abusive. I do not.

As for being sued over BeOS, that wasn't until 2002 which was both well after Be was a non-entity after having lost their intended goal of being sold back to Apple. By that time, Be had been sold to new owners who were trying desperately to find any source of revenue from their purchase of a zombie product. Note that the case never went to trial.

Now, care to go back on topic and explain why you, apparently, think it's just fine for Apple to prevent competitors from selling applications for iPhone?

rr0de

FYI: Boeing (and Airbus) don't make jet engines. They both buy them from the same pool of suppliers and you'll frequently find them using the same supplier.

Think of it as analogous to Dell and HP both having the option of Intel or AMD processors. Your statement would be equivalent to: "Why cant Dell sell its processors on HP computers?  Why wont HP allow that?  Is that Anti-Competitve?"

Perhaps you could clarify what it is you actually are asking.

Pingback from  Google: Apple DID reject Google Voice. Thus, Apple DID lie to the FCC | The Software Nook