All Articles Tagged Google

Google’s official mobile blog has just (and finally!) announced Push Gmail support for the iPhone!

Integrated into their existing GoogleSync service, which up until today supported only contacts and calendar:

Using Google Sync, you can now get your Gmail messages pushed directly to your phone. Having an over-the-air, always-on connection means that your inbox is up to date, no matter where you are or what you’re doing. Sync works with your phone’s native email application so there’s no additional software needed. Only interested in syncing your Gmail, but not your Calendar? Google Sync allows you to sync just your Contacts, Calendar, or Gmail, or any combination of the three.

One big caveat remains, however. GoogleSync is powered by Microsoft Exchange ActiveSync, and most devices — including the iPhone — can only handle one (1) EAS account at a time. So, if you’re already using Exchange ActiveSync for your corporate email, that slot is taken and GoogleSync is useless to you.

For everyone else — joy! And if you try it out, let us know how it works for you!

[Thanks to mattshall for the head's up!]

Apple spokeswoman Natalie Kerris has sent TiPb a response to the now fully public Google FCC disclosure, which Dieter posted earlier today.

“We do not agree with all of the statements made by Google in their FCC letter. Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application and we continue to discuss it with Google.”

So it’s either Apple-said/Google-said, some broken-telephone (the irony!) between the two companies, or a mix of both?

Regardless of the “was it rejected or is it still being studied” tempest, Google Voice and Google Latitude remain absent from Apple’s App Store, and all companies seem to agree on the reason: they duplicate what Apple considers to be core functionality of the iPhone, and that’s something Apple currently doesn’t want to see duplicated.

Since it’s Apple’s product, that’s their prerogative (especially if they consider Google competitive in this space), though if Google Voice and Google Latitude are features a user needs, they’re not going to consider an iPhone. When/if that becomes a huge portion of the user base, Apple may have to reconsider. Either way, Google is still going ahead with WebApp versions for now and everyone else is just going to have to wait and see..

In a post on their official blog, Google has let the world know that, “in the interest of transparency,” they’re allowing the FCC to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request to fully publish their response about the whole Google Voice Rejection Brouhaha, and it’s an interesting read, to say the least. You can grab the PDF of the letter right here.

The letter, which had been previously redacted, claims that not only did Apple fully reject both Google Voice and Latitude, but the rejection came after conversations between top executives, including Phil Shiller. This contradicts Apple’s claim that they had not rejected the apps, but merely reviewing them in a more extensive way.

The reason for the rejections (as Google calls them) is what you probably expected: “duplicate functionality.” Google writes:

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

The story is much the same for Google Latitude, but has a bit more shadenfreude to it since the functionality that’s being duplicated is “a version of Google Maps.” Google also details the dates of calls, emails, and in-person conversations between Alan Eustace of Google (VP of Engineering and Research) and Phil Schiller of Apple (VP of Worldwide Product Marketing, but you knew that).

So… the worm and turned and Google’s letting the world know they feel rejected. How do you feel after this latest development?

Determined to maintain their place atop WebApp mountain, Google released a new service today as part of their Labs testbed, and again it helps push forward just what’s possible using cloud services (online data) and interactive front ends (AJAX in the browser). Google Blogs says:

Fast Flip [http://fastflip.googlelabs.com/] is a new reading experience that combines the best elements of print and online articles. Like a print magazine, Fast Flip lets you browse sequentially through bundles of recent news, headlines and popular topics, as well as feeds from individual top publishers. As the name suggests, flipping through content is very fast, so you can quickly look through a lot of pages until you find something interesting. At the same time, we provide aggregation and search over many top newspapers and magazines, and the ability to share content with your friends and community. Fast Flip also personalizes the experience for you, by taking cues from selections you make to show you more content from sources, topics and journalists that you seem to like. In short, you get fast browsing, natural magazine-style navigation, recommendations from friends and other members of the community and a selection of content that is serendipitous and personalized.

Right now they’re providing content from New York Times, the Atlantic, the Washington Post, Salon, Fast Company, ProPublica and Newsweek, but the news we’re excited about, and indeed have come to expect from Google is this:

We’ve also made a mobile version of Fast Flip [http://fastflip.googlelabs.com/mobile] with tactile page flipping for Android-powered devices and the iPhone, so you can browse on the go. This is accessible at the same address.

Now if this were combined with something like Google Books, lets say…

A couple more pics after the break. If you try it out, as always, let us know what you think.

[Thank Muero for the tip!]

Read the rest of this entry »

Could Apple eventually gain monopoly status in one or more businesses, and become as “evil” (or worse) as Microsoft was when regulators went after them in the 1990s? Windows pundit Paul Thurrott thinks so, and thinks it’s time to act now before it’s too late.

Now, Thurrott is an interesting dichotomy, well-balanced on his Windows Weekly podcast yet Dvorak‘ian in link-baiting on his blog. He’s pro Microsoft all the way, but has still been unable to find anything as compelling as the iPhone or iPod in their respective spaces. So, assuming we’re dealing with the more even handed podcasting and iPhone-using Thurrott, and we’re not just biting his baited link, his argument here is this:

until very recently, Apple was the underdog, and they’ve been the underdog for almost their entire existence. This creates a certain mindset, and under Steve Jobs especially, it’s created a very aggressive competitive spirit. This aggressiveness is fine when you are literally the underdog, just as was the case with Microsoft early in its career and it was trying to wrest the PC industry from IBM, Lotus, WordPerfect, and other tech dinosaurs. But once you have a dominant market position, that aggressive behavior–so important for an up-and-comer–isn’t just bad, it’s illegal. It’s just hard to turn it off when it’s been part of the corporate psyche for so long.

His answer?

With this obvious comparison of two very similarly belligerent companies–Microsoft of the mid-1990s and Apple of today–in mind, I think the time has come to rein Apple in. To examine Apple’s exclusive relationships with wireless carriers. To force it to open up iTunes to competing players, and its iPhone and iPod devices to competing software and services. If we don’t do this now, it will only be more difficult in the future. All you have to do is look at Microsoft’s never-ending antitrust saga–which has now stretched on for 15 years, involved regulatory bodies on three continents, and gone on far longer than its actual bad behavior–to see why it’s time.

The problem?

Read the rest of this entry »

Apple “rejected” Google Voice for iPhone from the iTunes App Store, the FCC asked Apple, AT&T, and Google to answer some questions about that rejection. Now those questions have been answered-ish, and boy did it result in a flurry of posts here on TiPb and more importantly — an impressive and penetrating degree of analysis from our commenters.

Have trouble keeping track? Or just want to know what you happily avoided? No worries, we have you covered:

• Apple Responds to FCC Questions (Google and AT&T as Well)
• Apple: 8500 Apps to Review a Week by 40 Odd Reviews
• AT&T To Reconsider VoIP Applications Over 3G? Yeahbuwhat Apple VoIP apps?
• Do Other Countries Lose Out on Apps Because of AT&T Policies?
• Apple iPhone is a Restaurant, Not a Super Market, and They Should Say So on the Sign
• Apple Afraid Google is Taking Over the iPhone?
• Apple Kicking Themselves They Didn’t Buy GrandCentral (Google Voice) First?

Techcrunch has an interesting “rebuttal” up regarding Apple’s response to the FCC over the rejection of Google Voice. I use the quotes because I think the rebuttal part itself is off-target, while the conclusion is fairly spot on. Worst things first:

[Apple's response] strongly suggests that the Google Voice app replaces much of the core Apple iPhone OS function. This certainly isn’t accurate, and we believe the statement is misleading. More details below, but in general the iPhone app is a very light touch and doesn’t interfere with any native iPhone apps at all.

The crux of their argument is that, while Google Voice provides separate voice dialing, voice mail, and SMS functionality outside Apple’s built-in Phone and Messages apps, users are still free to use the built in apps. More specifically, that Google Voice only replaces these things when the Google Voice phone number is used.

Um. Yeah.

Users, at least in part, are going to be replacing the AT&T number with the Google Voice number (likely the reason to get the Google Voice number for a segment of users). Ergo, they’ll be replacing the built in Phone and SMS apps with the Google Voice app.

No big deal, though, right? Why should Apple care if people replace Phone and Messages with Google Voice?

Read the rest of this entry »

UPDATE: As pointed out in comments, Android honcho Andy Rubin responds on the Google blog:

Here are the facts, clear and simple: While the first generation of our Android software did not support full-featured VoIP applications due to technology limitations, we have worked through those limitations in subsequent versions of Android, and developers are now able to build and upload VoIP services.

Rubin claims USA Today was made aware of this, but also says “individual operators can request that certain applications be filtered if they violate their terms of service”, which basically means AT&T’s no SlingPlayer, or conceivably any networks no-VoIP policy, would still affect Android, so — okay. Let’s get to it Skype and we’ll see what T-Mo really thinks.

However, Rubin does dream, like all of us (likely even Apple, in public, if asked) of the day when “dumb pipes” are a reality.

Read the rest of this entry »

Looks like YouTube is following parent-company Google’s increasingly awesome mobile optimization initiative, announcing an iPhone-friendly version of the dominant media site. According to their official blog:

Just visit youtube.com from your mobile phone, and you’ll be taken to a new website specially designed for your device. You can log into your account, view your favorites, and discover and share new videos quickly and easily with whoever you choose. It’s part of our mission to create the best possible YouTube experience for you, whether you use the site on your computer, in your living room, or on the go.

Since Google’s own Android, as well as Palm’s Pre, use the same Mobile WebKit foundation as the iPhone, YouTube hits three advanced platforms with one code-base.

Nifty.

[Via PreCentral.net]

The iPhone’s Mail app connects to Google Gmail — and it’s paid version, Google Accounts — via the IMAP protocol [Wikipedia link]. Until Apple and/or Google get off their duffs and provide built-in push Gmail (or absent that, Google Sync Gmail for those not otherwise using their single Exchange ActiveSync slot), IMAP is all we have. (And IMAP IDLE may be what we have for push Gmail as well…) So what’s the problem?

Read the rest of this entry »