Why Didn't Google Throw Apple Under The Bus From The Start?
Apple lied. That is basically what Google claimed yesterday when it published the redacted version of its filing about Google Voice to the Federal Communications Commission. — My first reaction to this was: WTF?! My second take was: Why?
Context & Ripple Effects
The dispute began when the FCC, in early August 2009, opened a formal inquiry into why Google Voice never shipped for the iPhone — TechCrunch framed it as the regulator wanting to smash open the iPhone's closed distribution model, and the agency then put direct written questions to Apple, AT&T and Google. Until this week both companies had answered privately.
By publishing a redacted version of its FCC filing on September 18, Google moved the fight into public view, asserting that Apple's account of the Google Voice episode amounts to a lie — a claim syndicated the same day by Silicon Alley Insider and TechCrunch, whose take was blunt: 'Apple Won't Win This Fight.' The significance is that two erstwhile boardroom allies are now contradicting each other in front of a regulator.
First-order effects
- Apple is now publicly on record before the FCC with an explanation Google has contradicted in writing, forcing Apple either to defend its account or revise it while the inquiry is still open.
- AT&T is exposed in the same filing cycle: whatever share of the rejection story involves carrier constraints, its role is being litigated in a document anyone can read.
Second-order effects
- iPhone developers watching the App Store Resource Center rollout get a live demonstration of why rejection decisions need documentation — opaque gatekeeping now carries regulatory cost for Apple.
- Google gains leverage beyond the phone itself: the same week it announced a display-ad exchange aimed at Yahoo, it can frame Apple as the party misleading regulators, hardening the rivalry across ads, Chrome-for-Mac delays, and Android.
Third-order effects
- If the FCC follows through, the Google Voice case becomes a template for regulators interrogating platform gatekeeping — app approval, carrier exclusivity, and take-rate terms treated as matters of public record rather than private contracts.
- A durable split between Google and Apple over openness versus control would push each to build independent distribution paths — Google pushing web-based apps and its own platforms, Apple tightening its walled garden — reshaping how mobile services reach users.
The trend: Mobile platform disputes are migrating from private negotiations between Apple, carriers and developers into public regulatory filings, with the FCC's iPhone inquiry setting the precedent.