UPDATE 2009-07-29: According to Sean Kovacs’ (creator of GV Mobile) blog, Apple has admitted to the fact that it was AT&T that called for the removal of the Google Voice apps from the App Store. This is an extremely biased move on AT&T’s part since the BlackBerry has an official (released by Google) Google Voice application. And for the reason’s I stated below, it is kind of idiotic for AT&T to want to block Google Voice on iPhone’s, since you need to have a regular phone to use Google Voice in the first place.
If you’re not aware, Apple has rejected Google’s iPhone app for Google Voice. Apple also went ahead and removed previously approved Google Voice apps from the iPhone App Store.
Many people are putting the blame squarely on AT&T for this sudden move. However, I argue that these people are blantently wrong. Before I explain why, I want to explain how Google Voice works for making phone calls. Currently, to make a phone call through Google Voice, you have to log into the Google Voice website and type the number you want to call. What happens next is, Google Voice calls your cell phone (or which ever phone you specifiy the call to go to), where you answer the phone. After you answer on your phone, Google Voice then dials the number you wanted and connects it to you.
So, as you can see, using Google Voice on your iPhone requires the use of cellular minutes that come out of your celluar plan (unless the call comes in during your free minute periods, like nights/weekends). You still take the phone call through your cell phone so you use cell minutes. So there is zero competition from Google Voice on this front since it’s not a true VOIP (Voice Over IP) system. And, while Google Voice allows you to make international calls for cheap, you still have to pay for those minutes in your cell plane, you just won’t pay the international rates of your cell provider.
Where Google Voice could compete with AT&T is the free SMS that Google Voice provides. However, if you want to get the messages as soon as possible, you’d have to turn on SMS forwarding which in turn will use your cell providers SMS services, thus charging you. Sure, you can turn off the SMS forwarding feature in Google Voice, nothing is stopping a GV user from doing so. But currently, forwarding the messages from Google Voice to your phone (and responding from your phone) uses your messaging plan’s text messages.
Nope, this rejection and removable of applications lies solely at the feet of Apple. This is the downside to going with a closed garden approach for phone applications. If you have an iPhone (which I do), you are completely at the mercy of Apple’s app approval process. In this case Apple is going to tick off enough people that they’ll jump ship the second they can. I myself will wait until AT&T has an Android device, then I will probably jump to tha. The Android and BlackBerry Google Voices apps still work (on AT&T this would be solely limited to BlackBerry), so if it was AT&T saying “no” they wouldn’t have allowed the BlackBerry Google Voice app, but they did. I blame Apple for this entire debacle.
Michael Koby 
Gun Control – Lets Get Something Straight
There was big news today about the Senate voting against the right of concealed weapon license holders being able to carry their weapon across states (essentially turning a CHL into something resembling a driver’s license, in that a license granted in a single state is considered valid in another). While I’m not going to argue the right/wrong of the issue’s outcome, I wanted to point out something that really eerked me in a LA Times article on the subject (article here).
Here’s the quote:
Here’s my problem(s) with the above statement. First and foremost, the law being voted on is not an assault on state’s rights. The second amendment of the Constitution clearly says:
While one could debate what “a well regulated militia” means, for the purposes of my argument it means “the people” since in the time the Constitution was written, the army was the people. But it the amendment clearly states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall NOT be infringed” and with that, allowing a gun owner (and licensed concealed weapon holder) to cross state lines is a right afforded by the Constitution of these United States.
Continuing that line of thought, the tenth amendment of the same Constitution is the one that deals specifically with states rights and it says:
When you read the above quote, focus on the part where it says “nor prohibited by it to the States” which means that a state can not infringe on a right specifically granted by the Constitution. Since the “people’s right to bear arms” is something that “should not be infringed upon” in the previous amendment, the law that failed to pass through the Senate today is not in anyway “an assault on states rights” and in fact, the argument of the people and organizations is in fact a violation of federal rights granted by the Constitution.
Let’s review. The right for a person to bear arms is the second amendment of the United States Constitution (second to freedom of speech, religion, and press), and the tenth amendment clearly says that a state law can not supersede a right granted by the Constitution. Therefore, since the second amendment states a person has the right to bear arms, according to the tenth amendment, state laws are prohibited from creating laws that counter that amendment because creating a law that infringes on one’s rights to bear arms is a power prohibited by the Constitution.