The FCC has opened an inquiry into the rejection of the official Google Voice app from the App Store, which occurred at the same time that the App Store was “cleansed” of any Google Voice-enabled third-party apps.

On Friday, the FCC sent letters to all three parties involved: Google, Apple, and AT&T. While the letters to Apple and AT&T asked for an explanation for the rejection, the letter to Google simply asked questions about Google Voice as well as any prior Google apps accepted by Apple. Except, that the feds did ask how the Android Marketplace worked, in terms of rejecting apps.

Here’s the letter sent to Apple, sent to Catherine A. Novelli, Vice President of Worldwide Government Affairs of Apple.

Dear Ms. Novelli:

Recent press reports indicate that Apple has declined to approve the Google Voice application for the iPhone and has removed related (and previously approved) third-party applications from the iPhone App Store.1 In light of pending FCC proceedings regarding wireless open access (RM-11361) and handset exclusivity (RM-11497), we are interested in a more complete understanding of this situation.

To that end, please provide answers to the following questions by close of business on Friday, August 21, 2009.

1. Why did Apple reject the Google Voice application for iPhone and remove related third-party applications from its App Store? In addition to Google Voice, which related third-party applications were removed or have been rejected? Please provide the specific name of each application and the contact information for the developer.

2. Did Apple act alone, or in consultation with AT&T, in deciding to reject the Google Voice application and related applications? If the latter, please describe the communications between Apple and AT&T in connection with the decision to reject Google Voice. Are there any contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T that affected Apple’s decision in this matter?

3. Does AT&T have any role in the approval of iPhone applications generally (or in certain cases)? If so, under what circumstances, and what role does it play? What roles are specified in the contractual provisions between Apple and AT&T (or any non-contractual understandings) regarding the consideration of particular iPhone applications?

4. Please explain any differences between the Google Voice iPhone application and any Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) applications that Apple has approved for the iPhone. Are any of the approved VoIP applications allowed to operate on AT&T’s 3G network?

5. What other applications have been rejected for use on the iPhone and for what reasons? Is there a list of prohibited applications or of categories of applications that is provided to potential vendors/developers? If so, is this posted on the iTunes website or otherwise disclosed to consumers?

6. What are the standards for considering and approving iPhone applications? What is the approval process for such applications (timing, reasons for rejection, appeal process, etc.)? What is the percentage of applications that are rejected? What are the major reasons for rejecting an application?

Request for Confidential Treatment. If Apple requests that any information or documents responsive to this letter be treated in a confidential manner, it shall submit, along with all responsive information and documents, a statement in accordance with section 0.459 of the Commission’s rules. 47 C.F.R. § 0.459. Requests for confidential treatment must comply with the requirements of section 0.459, including the standards of specificity mandated by section 0.459(b). Accordingly, “blanket” requests for confidentiality of a large set of documents are unacceptable. Pursuant to section 0.459(c), the Bureau will not consider requests that do not comply with the requirements of section 0.459.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

Question 6 above ought to be interesting. Apple has never revealed exactly what the standards are that it uses for accepting or rejecting apps. This could even mean that someday we could find out, via a Freedom of Information Act filing.

The FCC wants replies from all three companies by August 21st. You can read the letters here (.PDF, Google, AT&T, Apple).

The FCC has opened an inquiry into the rejection of the official Google Voice app from the App Store, which occurred at the same time that the App Store was “cleansed” of any Google Voice-enabled third-party apps.

On Friday, the FCC sent letters to all three parties involved: Google, Apple, and AT&T. While the letters to Apple and AT&T asked for an explanation for the rejection, the letter to Google simply asked questions about Google Voice as well as any prior Google apps accepted by Apple. Except, that the feds did ask how the Android Marketplace worked, in terms of rejecting apps.

Here’s the letter sent to Apple, sent to Catherine A. Novelli, Vice President of Worldwide Government Affairs of Apple.

Dear Ms. Novelli:

Recent press reports indicate that Apple has declined to approve the Google Voice application for the iPhone and has removed related (and previously approved) third-party applications from the iPhone App Store.1 In light of pending FCC proceedings regarding wireless open access (RM-11361) and handset exclusivity (RM-11497), we are interested in a more complete understanding of this situation.

To that end, please provide answers to the following questions by close of business on Friday, August 21, 2009.

1. Why did Apple reject the Google Voice application for iPhone and remove related third-party applications from its App Store? In addition to Google Voice, which related third-party applications were removed or have been rejected? Please provide the specific name of each application and the contact information for the developer.

2. Did Apple act alone, or in consultation with AT&T, in deciding to reject the Google Voice application and related applications? If the latter, please describe the communications between Apple and AT&T in connection with the decision to reject Google Voice. Are there any contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T that affected Apple’s decision in this matter?

3. Does AT&T have any role in the approval of iPhone applications generally (or in certain cases)? If so, under what circumstances, and what role does it play? What roles are specified in the contractual provisions between Apple and AT&T (or any non-contractual understandings) regarding the consideration of particular iPhone applications?

4. Please explain any differences between the Google Voice iPhone application and any Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) applications that Apple has approved for the iPhone. Are any of the approved VoIP applications allowed to operate on AT&T’s 3G network?

5. What other applications have been rejected for use on the iPhone and for what reasons? Is there a list of prohibited applications or of categories of applications that is provided to potential vendors/developers? If so, is this posted on the iTunes website or otherwise disclosed to consumers?

6. What are the standards for considering and approving iPhone applications? What is the approval process for such applications (timing, reasons for rejection, appeal process, etc.)? What is the percentage of applications that are rejected? What are the major reasons for rejecting an application?

Request for Confidential Treatment. If Apple requests that any information or documents responsive to this letter be treated in a confidential manner, it shall submit, along with all responsive information and documents, a statement in accordance with section 0.459 of the Commission’s rules. 47 C.F.R. § 0.459. Requests for confidential treatment must comply with the requirements of section 0.459, including the standards of specificity mandated by section 0.459(b). Accordingly, “blanket” requests for confidentiality of a large set of documents are unacceptable. Pursuant to section 0.459(c), the Bureau will not consider requests that do not comply with the requirements of section 0.459.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

Question 6 above ought to be interesting. Apple has never revealed exactly what the standards are that it uses for accepting or rejecting apps. This could even mean that someday we could find out, via a Freedom of Information Act filing.

The FCC wants replies from all three companies by August 21st. You can read the letters here (.PDF, Google, AT&T, Apple).

One day after security experts announced their iPhone SMS hack research at the Black Hat Security Conference, Apple released a patch to address the flaw.

Experts revealed on Thursday that malformed SMS messages could be used to hijack an iPhone. Originally, an O2 spokesperson was the first to reveal the upcoming fix, noting that the patch would be available Saturday through iTunes.

“We will be communicating to customers both through the website and proactively.

“We always recommend our customers update their iPhone with the latest software and this is no different.”

Apple delivered the fix sooner than expected, however, with the new OS version, 3.0.1 becoming available by mid-day in the U.S.

Security researchers Charlie Miller and Collin Mulliner released their findings the Black Hat conference in Las Vegas on Thursday. Further reports indicate that the flaw exists in most, if not all, GSM devices based on the way they handle SMS messages.

Miller and Mulliner also found a hole in the iPhone’s Safari browser way back in 2007 when it was first launched.

One day after security experts announced their iPhone SMS hack research at the Black Hat Security Conference, Apple released a patch to address the flaw.

Experts revealed on Thursday that malformed SMS messages could be used to hijack an iPhone. Originally, an O2 spokesperson was the first to reveal the upcoming fix, noting that the patch would be available Saturday through iTunes.

“We will be communicating to customers both through the website and proactively.

“We always recommend our customers update their iPhone with the latest software and this is no different.”

Apple delivered the fix sooner than expected, however, with the new OS version, 3.0.1 becoming available by mid-day in the U.S.

Security researchers Charlie Miller and Collin Mulliner released their findings the Black Hat conference in Las Vegas on Thursday. Further reports indicate that the flaw exists in most, if not all, GSM devices based on the way they handle SMS messages.

Miller and Mulliner also found a hole in the iPhone’s Safari browser way back in 2007 when it was first launched.

Gary McKinnon

Kevin Poulsen writes on Threat Level:

Britain’s High Court on Friday rejected two extradition appeals by Pentagon hacker and 9/11 truther Gary “Solo” McKinnon, who’s trying to avoid a U.S. trial for cracking nearly 100 Pentagon and NASA computers in 2001 and 2002.

If convicted, McKinnon, 43, faces anywhere from six months to six-and-a-half years in prison under federal sentencing guidelines, depending on how much damage he caused, and other factors.

Lawyers for McKinnon argued that Home Secretary Jacqui Smith failed to consider McKinnon’s recent diagnosis of Asperger’s Syndrome when ordering his extradition, and that British prosecutors should charge the hacker in Britain, where he lives. But Judge Stanley Burnton said in a 41-page opinion Friday that extradition was “a lawful and proportionate response to his offending,” according to the AP.

More here.

I’ve received very positive feedback and lots of good ideas on the concept of having a combined calendar of Free Webinars. The really nice thing about the way Jon Udell has set up his elmcity project (the system we are using) is that it acts a lot like social curation on RSS sources as provided by Browse My Stuff, but brings together designated calendars instead of blogs or other RSS sources.

In English, that means that we can have many different people each own their separate calendar and we can bring it together.

The initial list of calendar entries, we added ourselves. But I’m pleased to announce that we’ve just signed up our second calendar curator – Coaching Ourselves. Their events are now appearing in the listings:

Free eLearning Webinars

For now you won’t be able to necessarily distinguish the source, but we will work on exposing that in the future. One of the recommendations we’ve already received.

It is exactly because we can distribute the load of keeping this list current that makes me think this will work really well in the long run.

If you are doing webinars that would be of interest to workplace learning professionals, please contact me: akarrer@techempower.com.

---

eLearning Technology
Subscribe to the Best of eLearning Learning for updates from this blog and other eLearning blogs.

More Mark Fiore brilliance.

Via The San Francisco Chronicle.

Enjoy.

- ferg