Google’s official Google Voice app for iPhone has just hit the iTunes App Store.

• Access your Google Voice account right from your iPhone.
• Receive push notifications for new text or voicemail messages.
• Send free text messages to U.S. numbers and make international calls at cheap rates.
• Listen to your voicemail, read transcripts and manage your Google Voice inbox.
• Display your Google Voice number as caller ID when making calls.
• Call contacts from your iPhone Address Book or enter new numbers on the dialpad.
• A Google Voice account is required to use this app. To sign up go to www.google.com/voice.
• Google Voice is only available in the United States.

Wow, who thought we’d ever get to type those words? While the last bullet point is a bit of a bummer, there’s no denying this ends one of the darker chapters of iOS and App Store history — which included an FCC investigation and revealed the first cracks in what had previously been an Apple/Google love-fest.

If you’re trying it out let us know how you like it and how it compares to GV Mobile and other 3rd party offerings.

Now where’s the official Gmail app?

[Free - iTunes link]

A Google Voice app, GV Connect, and a Basic Interpreter, by way of Commodore 64, have both been approved and are now in the iTunes App Store.

These types of apps have been rejected, left in limbo, pulled in the past, and the subject of government investigation in the past. Following Apple’s recent change of developer license and publication of plain-language approval guidelines, they’re in the store.

[GV Connect on iTunes - $2.99, Commodore 64 on iTunes - $4.99]

Google has released the long-awaited Google Voice WebApp for iPhone (and Palm webOS), something they said they’d be doing in the wake of their exclusion from the iTunes App Store.

Similar to Google’s other, marvelous WebApps like Gmail, it leverages the advanced web technologies built into iPhone Safari to provide an optimized UI through which make calls from your Google Voice number and send SMS. Or so we hear… TiPb HQ has been trying to try it, but it’s been “fail city” according to Dieter, with lots of network request errors. (At least on the iPhone, his Palm Pre is doing better).

“It’s a very pretty “Network Request Failed” pop up dialog box. Quite impressive,” he says. (See it after the jump.)

According to TechCrunch, however:

It is built on HTML5 with most of the functionality of the original iPhone app, except that it cannot access the local contact list in your iPhone’s address book. It lets you manage a separate Google Voice contact list which is kept in the cloud instead. Google Voice voice routes your calls through its servers and acts as a new hub through which you can manage calls and forward them to various phones. You can also manage your settings and various phone numbers. The HTML5 makes it very fast, allows for local caching of data, and supports the voice tags necessary to play the audio voicemails through the browser.

You can access it via http://m.google.com/voice. If you’re a Google Voice user, let us know how it works for you, and how it compares to a native app like GV Mobile for Jailbreak.

Video after the break!

And Dieter’s error screen:

AT&T, according to the WSJ, has asked the FCC to investigate Google Voice for violating federal call-blocking rules. Basically, Google isn’t letting Google Voice users connect to pricy adult chat lines and conference services. (The nerve!)

Slapped around by the FCC a couple of years ago on the same charges, AT&T wants Google to get a taste of that medicine, and likely wants to throw some of the heat they caught over the whole Apple rejection/still-studying Google Voice debacle right back Google’s way.

Google’s blog responds thusly:

AT&T is trying to make this about Google’s support for an open Internet, but the comparison just doesn’t fly. The FCC’s open Internet principles apply only to the behavior of broadband carriers — not the creators of Web-based software applications. Even though the FCC does not have jurisdiction over how software applications function, AT&T apparently wants to use the regulatory process to undermine Web-based competition and innovation.

Ah, new technology and the laws that trail far back behind it. Google may be technically right in that they’re something new and different than what the law was originally designed to govern. Clearly the spirit of openness — which Google pays enormous lip-service to when it suits them — is what’s important, though. Isn’t it Google?

[Via Gizmodo]

• Our podcast feed
• Download Directly
• Subscribe via iTunes

Join Rene, Chad, and Chris for push gmail, iTunes 9.0.1, bugs and fixes, iPhone 3.2 predictions, more Google Voice fallout, and all the weeks news and view, plus your live chat! Listen in!

And congratulations to Alli, this week’s live chat winner! Enjoy the iSkin solo!

Credits

Thanks to the the iPhone Blog Store for sponsoring the podcast, and to everyone who showed up for the live chat!

Our music comes from the following sources:

• I Called You — iPhone Remix by Pete Leidy
via Sneakmove iPhone Ringtone Challenge

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?

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?

Google bought Grand Central and rebranded it Google Voice, now Apple has rejected Google Voice for the iPhone and the FCC is looking into it. Based on the responses Apple had given the FCC, it looks like they might be afraid Google is taking over the iPhone and Google Voice is a big piece of that. So what if Apple had bought Grand Central instead? Or what if that new world-class data center Apple is building will be home to a Google Voice competitor? (Tip of the theoretical hat to Derek in our comments, who delightfully calls such a thing iVoice).

GrandCentral (not to be confused with Apple’s upcoming multicore processor handler, Grand Central Dispatch) was an innovative service that gave users a new phone number that could replace any number of other and assorted numbers (one line to ring them all), along with SMS, transcribed voice mail, conference calling, call switching, call screening, etc. It was purchased by Google in 2007 for $95 million, and relaunched in 2009 as Google Voice.

If Apple had bought it instead, they would of course now be spared the headaches surrounding the above mentioned rejection and investigation. But they’d also have a fairly compelling set of services to roll up into the iPhone…

The original iPhone 2G saw Apple neatly remove carriers from a large portion of the smartphone experience by handling the selling and activation themselves, and not allowing any so-called carrier crapware (or even physical branding) onto the iPhone.

iPhone 3G and iPhone 2.0 saw the removal of carrier application portals with the introduction of an Apple-controlled App Store (though that inarguably has crapware all it’s own, users don’t have to fight with it being pre-installed and/or baked in).

At the same time, the original iPod touch went from being a crippled, no external speaker, no external volume control iPhone, to a fairly good non-phone iPhone. In a couple of weeks, Apple is widely expected to ship an iPod touch with a camera and perhaps microphone as well.

That makes it a potential VoIP monster.

Of course, GrandCentral/Google Voice doesn’t use VoIP (despite Apple’s weak-tea response that they’re still investigating it). That doesn’t mean it couldn’t (as in never will).

An iPhone — or iPod touch — with “iVoice” phone, sms, voice mail, etc. behind it…? That removes the carrier further still (dumb pipe chants, if you will), and the iPod touch as a VoIP monster? Heh. It becomes the Balrog.

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?

Here, Techcrunch makes the kind of sense that does:

Multiple sources at Google tell us that in informal discussions with Apple over the last few months Apple expressed dismay at the number of core iPhone apps that are powered by Google. Search, maps, YouTube, and other key popular apps are powered by Google. Other than the browser, Apple has little else to call its own other than the core phone, contacts and calendar features. The Google Voice App takes things one step further, by giving users an incentive to abandon their iPhone phone number and use their Google Voice phone number instead (transcription of voicemails is reason enough alone). Apple was afraid, say our sources, that Google was gaining too much power on the iPhone, and that’s why they rejected the application.

Taking a look at the iPhone Home Screen, I see: Messages (could be replaced by Google Voice), Calendar (can already be fed by Google Calendar), Photos (no Picasa feed yet), Camera, YouTube (fed by Google), Stocks (Yahoo! ), Maps (fed by Google), Weather (Yahoo!), Voice Memos, Notes, Clock, Calculator, Settings, iTunes, App Store (no fair counting Google WebApps here), Compass, Phone (could be replaced by Google Voice), Mail (Gmail replacement app, MailWrangler, rejected from App Store, but can be fed by Gmail IMAP), iPod.

That’s a fairly hefty Google presence. Previously, TiPb’s mentioned how the iPhone gets the best of both worlds — Apple and Google developing for it, while Android only gets Google. However, part of the thinking behind why Google launched Android (and Chrome, and will launch ChromeOS) is because they see themselves as a threat to traditional OS and software makers, and want to ensure they have their own platforms — and control of those platforms — just incase Microsoft or Apple ever decide to cut them out of those traditional OS and software spaces.

So, while Google has Android to fall back on absent the iPhone, does Apple have their own cloud services to fall back on absent Google’s data pipes? Microsoft is working hard to make sure they do, and — wait for it — isn’t Apple building a new billion-dollar data center for some undisclosed reason?

I made this analogy yesterday and I’m sticking by it — IBM licensing DOS for the PC killed IBM and gave birth to Microsoft. Google has a near-monopoly on search-based advertising, the cash cow of the internet, and they’re moving into all manner of services, now including software and mobile and desktop OS. They’re becoming so directly competitive with Apple that Google CEO Eric Schmidt has left Apple’s board of directors.

Apple worrying that one of their biggest, best funded, best forwardly positioned competitors is taking over the iPhone to a degree that they, rather than Apple, control the device?

Yeah, that’s totally believable.

Do we think for one moment that, if instead of licensing ActiveSync to work in Mail, Calendar, and Contacts, Microsoft had wanted to put a Mobile Outlook app on the iPhone to handle all that separately, Apple still would have gone forward with it?

Would BlockBuster allow Netflix kiosks in their stores without worries? Heck, would you rent a room in your house if more and more people began living there, outnumbering your family, and began replacing your furniture with alternatives, even if better?

If, on the other hand, Google Voice transparently worked through the existing Phone and Messages application, maybe Apple wouldn’t worry at all (though AT&T might at that point). Google Voice would then just be another pipe, and as I’ve discussed before, Apple seems to be a firm believer that the interface is the app. As long as users have a consistent front end, Apple can re-arrange the pipes behind the scenes, add or remove partners, introduce or deprecate technologies even, but the user experience stays the same, and Apple stays independent from service providers.

Google Voice being a separate app means that Google could, however unlikely it seems right now, one day decide to pull Google Voice from the iPhone and make it Android exclusive. Again, swapping pipes is easy, replacing an app part of the user base has become accustomed too, not so much.

Techcrunch believes Apple, given the FCC scrutiny, will now have no choice but to backpedal and allow Google Voice onto the iPhone, the same way a landlord afraid of being publicly called out as rude may allow that tenant to keep taking over the house.

Arguably, of course, Google has Android and can run Google Voice on Android, and if consumers want Google Voice they can simply buy Android-based phones. However, Andy Rubin just admitted Android 1.0 couldn’t even run VoIP, and of those who did indeed loudly leave the iPhone and switch to Android for that very reason, several have been just as loudly unsatisfied with the current polish of Google’s mobile OS. (No doubt that problem will disappear over the coming months/year).

So maybe I was wrong. Maybe it’s not just users that get the benefit of Apple and Google on the iPhone, and only Google on Android. Maybe Google gets the benefit of being on everything and Apple (and Microsoft, and RIM, and Palm, etc.) only get what’s left of their own, single platforms — those few icons not powered by Google.

[Thanks striatic for the tip!]

As part of their response to the FCC’s investigation into the rejection of Google Voice, Apple stated that they 1) receive about 8500 apps and app updates to review each week, 2) each app is reviewed by two reviewers, and 3) employ more than 40 full-time, trained reviewers.

Assuming that (3) doesn’t mean there are scads more part-time, untrained reviewers doing grunt work in the dark, sweaty back room (more on that in a moment), some math has been run by Mike Ash:

With 17,000 [8500 x 2] reviews per week and 45 reviewers, that means each reviewer performs 378 reviews per week. At 40 hours per week, this is 9.4 reviews per hour, or one review every 6.4 minutes.

Ash points out how this means months of work by a developer is left to the tender mercies of less than 10 minutes (counting overtime) with someone tasked to look at almost 400 other apps that same week. Can we get a “yikes!”

Back to part-time, untrained reviewers, Marco.org hazards to guess:

There could be 41 full-timers and 40 more part-timers. There’s a lot of evidence to indicate that most (if not all) of the front-line reviews are by non-native-English speakers and on schedules that strongly imply that they’re offshore. This may be the cause of a lot of the frustrating rejections in which the reviewer didn’t understand something about the application or description that seems clear to most Americans.

To recapitulate. Between iPhone users and 8500 weekly app submissions (each reviewed twice), stands possibly an unknown number of outsourced, untrained frontliners, 40 odd trained, full-time second liners, an unquantified star-chamber of executive reviews, and ultimately one Phil Schiller who may or may not email the developer or a blog (or two) about it?

Oh, and Steve Jobs.

Mike Ash (via Marco.org) makes this point following the FCC responses today:

Ignoring the question of why it’s Apple’s job to prevent their customers from breaking AT&T’s terms of service, it’s interesting to note just how much this policy is centered on the United States. The iPhone is sold in dozens of different countries and works with dozens of different cellular carriers all over the world. You can be certain that each one of those carriers has different terms of service. Why is AT&T so privileged that their terms of service, and theirs alone, are the ones that Apple looks at when deciding whether to reject or accept any given app? It’s quite likely that people all over the world are missing out on great iPhone apps that their cellular carriers would permit them to use just because AT&T does not permit Americans to use them.

This by way of saying, for example, because AT&T prohibits SlingPlayer from running over 3G, users in Canada (on Rogers), the UK (on 02), Japan (on SoftBank), etc. are also prevented from using SlingPlayer of 3G.

Apple certainly makes only specific mention of AT&T in their consideration process. However, AT&T was the first iPhone carrier signed, so perhaps there’s something in that original deal that makes it so — or is it just that Apple is headquartered in the US?

Now, presuming those other, international carriers aren’t just sighing in relief that AT&T takes the hit on this so they don’t have to (anyone think Rogers, O2, SoftBank, et al. are dying to take the network hit that comes with an uber-popular, functionality surfacing device like the iPhone doing high-bandwidth tasks like streaming TV shows and movies?

There are certainly examples enough of region-specific apps (AT&T’s own apps are just in the US), and apps that are missing from just one regional app store (Skype is not in the Canadian App Store, reportedly due to a patent dispute).

As mentioned previously, Sling has submitted a 3G-enabled version of SlingPlayer for non-US App Stores (Canada, UK, Japan, etc.), so we’ll soon see.

As part of the responses to the FCC’s inquiry into the rejection of Google Voice from the iPhone App Store, AT&T stated the following:

As noted above, AT&T regularly reviews its policies regarding features and capabilities available through the devices we offer in order to provide an attractive range of options for our customers. Consistent with this approach, we plan to take a fresh look at possibly authorizing VoIP capabilities on the iPhone for use on AT&T’s 3G network.

This was couched in some legal arguments stating economists and jurists allow deals where one party’s core business is protected against adverse actions taken by another party — in this case AT&T is saying VoIP would hurt their revenue from voice plans, so it’s okay for Apple to protect AT&T from that hurt.

However, AT&T also says that while Apple agreed not to produce a VoIP app for the iPhone without AT&T’s consent, they had no obligation to “take action against” a third party app.

So, presumably Apple is not allowed to make a VoIP app unless AT&T says okay, but Apple’s just being kind to AT&T by not allowing Skype (for example) to use the 3G network?

And if AT&T is changing their mind and thinking of allowing a VoIP app, and the only VoIP app they say they’re allowed to allow is one by Apple…

Conspiracy theorists, where does that leave us?

In light of today’s response by Apple to the FCC about the Google Voice rejection, and anticipating the likely, negative reaction it will engender, I’m again left thinking that Apple and their iPhone are closer akin to a restaurant, not a super market.

Steve Jobs is like one of those screaming, perfectionistic executive chefs concerned more with his haut cuisine than his customers, whose palettes he believes tempered by years of McRosoft (or whatever). He — and they — will serve you a beautiful, delicious, premium plate but will also decide every single ingredient that goes on it, if not tell you exactly how they want you to eat it. If you go to a restaurant, you know what you’re in for. You don’t go to Nobu and throw a fit because they refuse to serve you spaghetti, or let you run into the kitchen and whip up your own meal.

Other companies might be more like super markets, where you can indeed assemble your own meal from whatever they sell — though they’ll still stock the shelves with what they want, and not what they don’t want. More freedom, more work for the customer, and some will gladly take control over ease of use.

Typically, most of us go to restaurants AND shop at super markets, depending on what we feel like at the time. Likewise, some of us want that Apple-polished experience, others want more ability to roll their own.

With Google Voice specifically, Apple’s not letting that hot new sous-chef in the door, perhaps because they suspect he’s going to alter the menu in a profound way, then open up down the street and take all their customers. IBM learned that very painfully when they licensed DOS from Microsoft for the PC — sometimes you create your own killer.

Ultimately, the iPhone is Apple’s restaurant and Steve Jobs is the executive chef, and whether the lease with the booze supplier (AT&T) prohibits certain other cocktails (Skype, SlingPlayer), or Apple refused to let certain food in the place, it’s still their restaurant, and they control the menu.

Apple should just be honest about it and tell users and developers like it is — an iPhone is an appliance, no different than a Nintendo Wii or any other closed box. Right now, they’re feigning greater openness than they’re actually providing, causing prolonged confusion and ill-will. Say it straight, it’s our iPhone point finale, take the hit from users and developers who’ll leave, and then everyone else knows what it is when they pick it up and sign the contract, and it’s their responsibility.

Apple has responded to the FCC’s questions, issued following the controversial rejection of Google’s Google Voice application (though, in their response, it looks like Apple is claiming they haven’t rejected Google Voice, but are merely reviewing it (updated: under the dubious “duplicates functionality” rationale, due to independent and different dialing and voice mail interfaces and) to see if it violates Apple’s contract with AT&T not to allow VoIP over AT&T’s data network.)

We are pleased to respond to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau’s inquiry dated July 31, 2009, requesting information regarding Apple’s App Store and its application approval process. In order to give the Bureau some context for our responses, we begin with some background information about the iPhone and the App Store.

The entire document is available via Apple.com.

Google and AT&T responded as well, though not on their own websites yet. Engadget is hosting their letters. AT&T claims they were never contacted about Google Voice, however if their contract with Apple forbids it, like Skype and other VoIP apps, Apple wouldn’t have to contact them, so again — huge round of jeers for AT&T’s non-denial denials.

[Thanks to Doug for the tip)