Apple: More smoke and mirrors, Google: [Redacted], AT&T: Told ya.

So the heavy weight of lawyer cleared papers hit the desk of the FCC in response to a request by the FCC to Apple, Google and AT&A to cut the bullshit and start giving some straight answers; starting first with the debacle over the Google Voice app for the iPhone. We wrote about the beginnings of this previously.

One of the first things that was apparent is the fact that AT&T was not to blame for Google Voice getting killed off from the AppStore. This is contrary to John Gruber’s of Daring Fireball fame who said in a recent post that a reliable birdie that it was indeed AT&T’s fault

[Update 1:40 pm: Well, so much for my speculation. A reliable little birdie has informed me that it was indeed AT&T that objected to Google Voice apps for the iPhone. It’s that simple.]

Guess it wasn’t that simple eh John (funny how I haven’t seen a correction coming from Daring Fireball on this yet – I thought that’s what bloggers did – you know that whole honesty and transparency thing).

So now that we’ve got AT&T out of the way, on the iPhone and Google Voice thing anyway, we are left with the fact that this whole mess was caused by Apple because it didn’t like the way that Google Voice supplanted it’s proprietary Visual Voicemail phone app with the Google Voice user interface. Gawd forbid anything should take away from the visual delight that one gets when using the iPhone phone app.

It doesn’t matter that Google Voice can say users bucket loads of money. Nope, the Jobsian vision of how things must look and behave on his creation is the only thing of importance. Then how come other phone type apps are still available in the AppStore as was pointed out recently by the Gizmodo team.

One of the things I found interesting when reading the submission for Apple to the FCC is when Apple answered the first question, about the rejection of Google Voice. The opening preamble goes like this

Contrary to published reports, Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application, and continues to study it. The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone’s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone’s core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail. Apple spent a lot of time and effort developing this distinct and innovative way to seamlessly deliver core functionality of the iPhone.

Yet when they are asked by the FCC to explain any differences between Google Voice iPhone app and any Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) that has already been approved for the AppStore Apple’s reply would suggest that for all the studying of Google Voice they don’t seem to have much of a clue about its innards.

Question 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?

Apple does not know if there is a VoIP element in the way the Google Voice application routes calls and messages, and whether VoIP technology is used over the 3G network by the application. Apple has approved numerous standard VoIP applications (such as Skype, Nimbuzz and iCall) for use over WiFi, but not over AT&T’s 3G network.

So which is it Apple? Are you really looking at how Google Voice works or have you just said screw ya and hope this whole FCC will blow over with all the hot air you are blowing up their ass. Either you know how the program works and you are accepting it or you are rejecting it – you can’t have it both ways.

Now after all this confusion we are left with Google’s response to the FCC but unfortunately there is next to zilch to tell you because what has been released to the press has been severely redacted. Which as John Paczkowski notes is more than a little curious in itself

Now that’s a little odd, isn’t it? Why would Google ask the FCC to redact portions of its statement? Says Google, “[because the redacted] information relates specifically to private business discussions between Apple and Google and, as such, it constitutes commercial data ‘which would customarily be guarded from competitors’.”

That satisfy your curiosity? Doesn’t satisfy mine, either.

Me neither John, me neither.