AdMob, the mobile advertising firm that recently made headlines thanks to a Google acquisition, might have become part of the Apple fold if things had worked out differently, according to a report by Bloomberg that appeared this weekend. Apple reportedly approached AdMob with interest before the Google deal went down.

That’s according to “people familiar with the matter” speaking to Bloomberg. It isn’t clear which side of the deal the source was on, but he or she declined to go on record since the proposed talks were never made public. Apple is said to have contacted AdMob “a few weeks” before Google made its successful $750 million bid for the firm.

If true, the rumors point to the increasingly fierce competition between two major players in the mobile phone game. Google’s Android is being adopted by more and more manufacturers and distributed on more devices everyday. To have a piece not only of the revenue from the use of Android apps and devices, but also from the advertising that appears on those phones, is a huge boon for the search giant.

It’s unclear why Apple’s bid didn’t succeed, if it was indeed made. It’s possible that Google made a better offer while Apple was still in talks with AdMob, or that the advertising firm used the Apple offer as a bargaining tool in enticing Google. All of the companies involved in both deals declined to comment on the reports made by the anonymous source.

Acquiring a mobile ad firm would have been a bit of a departure for Apple, which is still a hardware manufacturer first and foremost, but it is a logical move for Cupertino to make. Many of the ads AdMob displays in mobile apps direct users back to other programs in the App Store, so essentially Apple would just be closing the loop and taking in additional revenue by promoting its own revenue-generating software delivery method. Plus, it could probably use the company to place hardware ads as well, promoting less successful products through the massively popular iPhone.

If Apple is genuinely interested in getting into online advertising, it could attempt another acquisition, or it may start hiring staff with the necessary skill sets. I’d hazard a guess that if the computer maker did make a failed bid for AdMob, it’ll be twice shy about getting into the game now, since Google now controls an intimidating 30 percent to 40 percent of the mobile advertising market. It’d be hard to gain a solid foothold at this point.

I’ve been playing around with Google Quick Search Box lately and am especially enjoying this services plugin from Martin Kuhl which lets you activate and pass input to OS X services right from within QSB.

One snag though has been that services created through the new Automator template included in Snow Leopard leave out some vital bits that limit integration. Luckily, a handy application from Waffle Software called ThisService makes creating proper services that integrate seamlessly with QSB a lot easier than you might think.

Being able to extend the functionality of QSB with OS X services really opens up a lot of possibilities. Grab text or files in QSB and pass them on to your services to do whatever you want with them, like creating a new To Do item in iCal. I’ve been focused recently on replicating functionality that I lost when I made the switch over from Quicksilver and I think that this improved service integration will get me about 90 percent of the way there.

The bad news is that this means I need to whip up a bunch of custom services for myself. The good news is that ThisService makes that task very easy. Just give it a script (AppleScript will do, but if you’re more comfortable with other scripting languages you can use those), define the type and name of your service and click Create Service. ThisService handles all the fiddly Cocoa bits and spits out a completed service into your ~/Library/Services directory where QSB will see it and serve it up as an available action when appropriate.

Actually writing your AppleScript will likely be the most complicated part, which is why ThisServices comes bundled with some handy starter scripts to put you on the right path. They also make a number of example scripts and services available for download from their site. The scripts don’t need to be complicated. For example, here is the one I use for adding To Do items in iCal:

on process(input)
tell application "iCal"
tell calendar "work"
make new todo at end with properties {summary:input}
end tell
end tell
end process

If you wanted to get fancy you could pass additional properties like the due date, priority, etc., but just getting a new item into the list is all I need.

Once you have your service setup accessing them through Quick Search Box is as easy as can be. Because showing seems to be more useful than describing, below is a quick little video clip of the To Do service in action. What kind of services would you like to have? Share your thoughts in the comments.

The advent of the cloud over the past few years has meant that a lot of the tasks that we were used to doing on our Mac have now moved to the web. This brings with it a host of issues, from data ownership to reliability of services (see recent Sidekick fiasco) and whether the web can deliver a Mac-like experience.

Putting all that aside, however, a more mundane problem is managing all of those sites and getting to them quickly and easily. Individual apps conveniently come with their own icon on your dock, web apps do not, forcing you to dig through the myriad of open tabs in your browser to find the app you need.If you’ve truly made the jump to cloud computing there is, thankfully, a better way: site specific browsers (SSBs). The basic idea is simple: Create a separate web browser, complete with its own icon on the dock, to browse to a single site. We’ve covered an excellent example of a site specific browser here on TAB in the past, Mailplane, which is used to access Gmail’s online interface.

The beauty of an SSB is not only do you get the bonus of neatly having your own icon for a single web application, but it also allows that site to integrate with OS X more completely. For example you can have things like address book access and dock badges, all things that Mailplane does for Gmail.

That’s great if you use Gmail, but what about all the other great web-based applications out there? Although there are not specific SSBs for things like Twitter, Google Calendar, Remember The Milk and other web services, there are two different programs that will let you take any web site and turn it into a site specific browser: Fluid and Prism. The major difference between the two is that Fluid uses Webkit to power its SSBs, while Prism uses the Gecko browser base that runs Firefox.

Aside from these underlying technologies, the two programs offer remarkably similar functionality. Simply enter a web address, choose an icon (or just use the site favicon), and voila, a new program based on that site will be created for you. What’s more, each browser can accept various scripts to add functionality like a dock icon and even Growl notifications. You can even make an SSB your default email or RSS program.

In many ways SSBs may represent the future of computing. Just look at Google’s upcoming Chrome OS, where the browser is the operating system. In such a situation it makes no sense to continue using the outdated system of web pages and browser bookmarks. When a website is a program unto itself you can argue that it deserves to be treated as one at the operating system level.

If you’re the CEO of TomTom or Garmin, you may want to sit down for this. Google is working on a turn-by-turn navigation app that it will be offering for free on Android 2.0 handsets. And if that wasn’t bad enough, it’s working with Apple to bring it to the App Store, too.

But hey, maybe it isn’t so bad for you, GPS industry. Maybe people will still want to pay way too much for single-purpose devices instead of installing a free app on the cell phone they already have, that works with the Google Maps and Google Search they already use.

According to CNET’s Tom Krazit, Google’s new app, appropriately dubbed Google Maps Navigation, was demoed Tuesday for reporters, and will be officially announced sometime today. The Google demo had the app running on an unidentified black Motorola Android 2.0 phone, believed to be the upcoming Droid device.

The good news for us Apple faithful is that Google announced at the event that it is working with Apple on bringing the game-changing software to the iPhone platform. The words “working with” are well chosen, because Maps Navigation requires a slightly different approach than the standard App Store approval process, since it won’t be a standalone application, but will instead work directly out of the built-in Google Maps app.

Direct Google Maps integration means that the new navigation app will be uniquely positioned among its competitors to deliver some really cool features, including Google Search for nearby points of interest (POI). Google Street View will also play a part, allowing you to see the actual street at upcoming turning points along your trip route, so that you’ll recognize exactly where you should turn. That should eliminate a lot of confusion in dense, layered urban areas where freeways and streets overlap, and many route divergences and convergences are subtle.

The version for Android 2.0 demoed also had a feature that recognized when the device was placed in a cradle or cupholder, and enlarged on-screen buttons to make it easier to work with while driving. The only feature not mentioned that is already present in many other GPS devices and apps is voice guidance, but even if not currently present, it’ll probably make an appearance down the road.

While I can’t see why Apple would reject or hamstring the introduction of this exciting, new feature, we’ve seen in the past that the relationship between it and Google can be tricky. I think Cupertino will realize, though, that in this case, the ability to market built-in, free-of-charge navigation is a great way to move more hardware, even if Navigon and TomTom won’t be too pleased with the decision.

Google and Apple’s very public, very messy ongoing lover’s spat is obviously not doing either company many favors in the media. Apple looks to be taking steps to ensure that should it need to, it can go without the do-everything leading Internet search provider.

To that end, it’s finally been confirmed this week by ComputerWorld that Apple did indeed acquire Google Maps competitor Placebase in July of this year. Former Placebase CEO Jaron Waldman is now part of the “Geo Team” at Apple, which suggests that the company was acquired so that Cupertino could work on its own, in-house Google Maps alternative.

Our own sister site GigaOM ran a profile of Placebase back in May 2008. It detailed the way in which Placebase’s PushPin product was able to stay afloat and compete with Google Maps, which offered its services completely free of charge. Placebase offered white label solutions for a price.

PushPin, and the follow-up, PolicyMap, which expanded PushPin’s features, competed by offering users the ability to layer on commercial and public data sets, including things like home sales, crime, demographics, employment, etc. Developers could also add their own data sets using a simple API. All of which made it infinitely more useful for business applications, and open to some incredibly creative uses, too.

Acquiring the one company that showed signs of being able to do what Google has done, only better and with more possibilities for third-party developer expansion, does not just seem like something done because of idle fancy. Apple’s motivation was probably twofold: First, it has an alternative in case things continue to go sour with the relationship between the two Silicon Valley heavyweights. Second, if the FCC forces a wedge between the two because it finds their relationship noncompetitive, Apple still has a back-up in place to prevent a major feature loss for iPhone users.

Of course, the loss of Google Maps on the iPhone would have far-reaching complications, especially considering the number of apps that now sport direct tie-ins with Maps functionality. To grant developers access to the Maps app in iPhone OS 3.0, and then swap it out for an Apple-branded version of PushPin would require a massive overhaul from a development standpoint. Will Apple really alienate its developer base with such a risky move?

Then again, with over 2 billion downloads and 85,000 apps in the App Store, Apple truly is in the driver’s seat. It has made absolutely sure that the value proposition of being an iPhone developer is apparent to everyone, and as such, it can probably afford to demand some code revisions if it does make a major change.

We’ll have to wait and see how this plays out, but I’m still fairly confident that Apple will only enact the Placebase alternative if the FCC forces a decisive split between Cupertino and Google. Even if the two are having some disagreements on other fronts, a voluntary end to the relationship just doesn’t make good business sense.

In case you’re an Apple user who isn’t on board with iPhoto ‘09, Google has just updated its own free image management software, Picasa, which shares its name with the web-based Flickr rival. Picasa 3.5 for Mac takes a lot of direction from iPhoto ‘09, borrowing at least two major features from Apple’s own software.

Picasa web users will recognize the “new” features for the desktop version, which haven’t previously been available on locally installed instances of Picasa in the past. They include face recognition, which Picasa calls “Name Tags,” and support for geotagged photos with location data.

With Name Tags, Picasa will analyze your photos and group them according to faces it find in them, at which point you’re able to assign names to these faces, and then search your library based on people you’ve tagged. If it sounds like Faces in iPhoto ‘09, that’s because it is, with the exception that when signed into your Gmail account with the app, Picasa will offer auto-complete suggestions of names you start typing.

Google also baked-in location support in Picasa 3.5, which resembles iPhoto ’09’s Places organizational feature. That means photos with embedded geotagging EXIF data, like those taken with the iPhone’s built-in camera, or using an Eye-Fi Geo card, can be optionally displayed on a map in Picasa 3.5. If you’ve taken your photos without embedded location information, you can simply drag them to the appropriate location on a built-in Google map to achieve the same effect.

Version 3.5 also brings an improved importing process, so that you can star your favorite shots, upload to the web, and share with your Google contacts all in one fell swoop. Tagging is also better than it was before, with better batch tagging, quick tags, and tag counts for image groups.

If you’re looking for an alternative to iPhoto, and you’re already very plugged into Google via its various personal information management apps, Picasa is a good choice. It isn’t much of a resource hog, it’s very good at combing and organizing your computer’s image files without much intervention on your part, and it plugs into your existing Google account information to fill in a lot of blanks. If I weren’t a MobileMe user (which I might not be for long after yesterday’s announcement), I’d definitely consider using Picasa as my full-time solution.

Picasa 3.5 is available now for Mac and PC, though not for Linux, and it’s an English-only download. It’s completely free, which is something iPhoto ‘09 is not, if you haven’t purchased a new Mac lately.

Oh, MobileMe, how will you deal with this latest threat to your iPhone feature dominance? First it was improved Exchange support, and now it’s push Gmail using Google Sync.

Remember Google Sync? It’s the service from Google which allows you to synchronize your contacts and calendar with your iPhone or iPod touch, in much the same way that MobileMe users can, only using a free service instead of a paid one. With Gmail push support, the trifecta of basic services is now complete.

True, MobileMe users still get some questionable value-add services like photo and video media-sharing via their MobileMe gallery, online disk storage space, cloud data backup, and Find My iPhone and other remote anti-theft and security features, but will those be enough to stop people from switching over to Google’s free, just-the-basics service? Time will tell. I know I’m thinking seriously about not renewing my MobileMe subscription at this point.

Google Sync allows you to mix and match, so you don’t have to enable all three of the syncing services. That’s a good thing for people like me whose Google Contacts is in a state of utter disarray, but who often uses Google Calendar and Gmail.

You can get set up with Google Sync by following the instructions posted here, if you haven’t already been using it. If you have, check out these instructions to get Gmail’s push features working for you. Gmail push also works on Windows Mobile devices, which no one in their right mind should be using anymore, unless forced to by the company they work for. Also, I’d like to take this opportunity to thumb my nose at BlackBerry users.

Apple rejected Google Voice for the iPhone. That’s not what Google says, exactly, except by posting the unredacted response to the FCC on the issue there remains little room for interpretation.

According to Google, none other than Apple Senior VP Phil Schiller told Google Senior VP Alan Eustace “that Apple was rejecting the Google Voice application.” The main reason for rejection was “because Apple believed the application duplicated the core dialing functionality of the iPhone.”

Google claims that the letter (PDF) is being released because of requests through the Freedom of Information Act, and because Apple released the full contents of its own response to the FCC.

Apple representative Steve Dowling immediately fired back, stating that Apple “did not agree with all of the statements made by Google in its letter. Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application. We continue to discuss it with Google.”

That “not rejected” assertion refers to the limbo-like status Google Voice has been in for months. That status was also referenced in Apple’s response to the FCC. In that nuanced letter, Apple voiced concern over the application because it appeared “to alter the iPhone’s distinctive user experience,” arguing that “Apple spent a lot of time and effort developing this distinct and innovative way to seamlessly deliver core functionality of the iPhone.”

Google Voice does change that experience in fundamental ways. It effectively shuts down Visual Voicemail by routing calls through Google Voice, replaces Apple’s text messaging, and moves contacts to Google’s servers. But is that what’s really bothering Apple? Om Malik offered another opinion way back when people were blaming AT&T for the not-rejection of Google Voice.

This battle between Google and Apple is going to get very ugly — as it should. Both companies have pinned their futures on smartphones.

This is a war Apple has fought before. The Mac lost the desktop wars to Windows because Apple did not defend its “experience” sufficiently. Protestations about the user interface aside, Apple is not about to make the same mistake with the future of mobile computing.

Snow Leopard was a remarkably painless upgrade for me, but one particularly important piece of software was broken: Google Gears.

For those who don’t know, Gears is Google’s framework for storing browser data offline. It works with many Google services as well as some third-party products. I use Gears primarily with Site Specific Browsers (SSBs) like Mailplane and Fluid, which give me offline access to Gmail, Google Reader and Remember The Milk.

These are some of my most used programs, and as such it became eminently obvious to me after the Snow Leopard upgrade that Google Gears was no longer working. To be clear, not all Snow Leopard installs will cause Google Gears to stop functioning. If you do a standard upgrade, Gears functionality should be carried over. Rather, it’s those like me who see a new operating system update as an opportunity to do a clean installation that will run into problems.

Specifically the new 64-bit version of Safari includes updated security features that are incompatible with Google Gears. If you tried to install Google Gears for OS X you would get a warning telling you that Google Gears won’t install on a version of OS X higher than 10.5. Now this makes some sense since Gears simply won’t work with the 64-bit version of Safari, but it also means that other programs like Mailplane and Fluid, which will work fine with the current version of Google Gears, are unable to get access to it’s features.

Google gears won't install on a clean Snow Leopard installation.

Thankfully, the helpful folks who developed Mailplane have created a hacked installer for Google Gears that skips the version check and allows you to install the program in Snow Leopard. You can pick up the modified installer here. As with any hack, proceed at your own risk, but my own experience has been flawless. Once I installed this version of Gears, Mailplane and Fluid were once again able to take advantage of the offline features of sites like Gmail.

Even with this version of Gears installed you won’t be able to use Gears with 64-bit Safari. If you do want to use Gears with Safari you will need to run it in 32-bit mode. This can be done easily by right-clicking on the Safari package, choosing Get Info and putting a check in the box next to “Open in 32-bit mode”. Those of you who use Gears with Firefox may be wondering what all the fuss is about as Gears works fine with that browser. That’s because Gears for Firefox is actually a Firefox extension, rather than an operating system service as Gears for OS X is.

I hope this helps out all those other Snow Leopard users who depend on Google Gears and lost the functionality during a clean install. Hopefully Google updates Gears to work natively with Snow Leopard soon so workarounds like these are unnecessary.

Friday the 21st was the day Apple, Google, and AT&T had to hand in their long form essay responses to a series of questions from the FCC. Surprisingly, Apple published its entire response here, and Engadget has both AT&T’s and Google’s.

I found the answers to the questions surprising on several levels. Let’s be honest here, who among us expected that Apple would be the one to publish its response in its entirety, while Google would be the party to claim confidentiality on why the app was rejected?

Was it, or Was it Not Rejected?

According to Apple, the app wasn’t rejected; it simply wasn’t approved. Which sounds very similar to a line Bill Clinton once delivered. Apple seems very sincere about their reasons for rejecting not approving Google Voice. After all, if an application, upon install, instantly reroutes all incoming calls, SMS messages, etc., and sends all your contacts to Google, it does sound a tad nefarious. Evil, even. Like the app should have fricken’ laser beams attached to its head.

Now, I could make a strong argument that I know more about rocket science (rockets go boom, right?) than I do about iPhone development. However, I do recall there being mention of certain APIs that were sacrosanct. Call me naive, but I don’t think Apple would publish an API that would allow Google Voice to behave it supposedly did. Google response, however, makes it seem like the worst Google Voice does is read your iPhone’s contact list from within its own app. Either way, it goes beyond Apple’s official APIs.

User Confusion

Having never used Google Voice, I have no first-hand experience with how it actually works. As near as I can tell, you give Google Voice a list of phone numbers it should call when someone calls your Google Voice number. If you don’t pick up, I’m assuming Google Voice’s back-end terminates the call and sends the caller to its voicemail network. You’d then show a missed call in the iPhone’s phone app and likely get a notification (push or otherwise) to the Google Voice app about the waiting voicemail.

Based on this assumption, do I think the Google Voice app introduces “user confusion?” No, I don’t. Now, I’ve worked in IT support for 15 years, and have run into my share of users who are confused by simple things about computers.

That said, if you go to Google’s site, sign up for their voice service, tell said service to call your iPhone, download an iPhone app to better manage that experience, and then tell me that you’re confused about why your GV voice mails aren’t handled by Visual Voicemail, I’m going to bean you in the head with a shovel. Repeatedly.

User confusion doesn’t fly for other Google Voice apps, either. None were nearly as invasive as Apple claims Google’s to be.

AT&T’s Role

AT&T has claimed they had no role in the Google Voice non-approval, and that the only apps it requests not appear in the App Store are ones that cause network congestion. Given Apple has also admitted this is the case, I believe AT&T had no role in this.

Seriously, Google?

I’m flabbergasted that the only company to claim confidentiality on why the app was refused was Google. As the aggrieved party, I expected Google to take a gigantic broadside shot at Apple. Google has also requested notification if someone seeks the redacted information under the Freedom of Information Act so “Google may have an opportunity to oppose grant of the disclosure request.”

Good gravy, when Apple is more outgoing with information than the party that had an app refused, I really start to wonder what was in there! I’m thinking its possible Google just wants to downplay their own mistakes at this point.

Tin Hat Theories and Occam’s Razor

When this whole issue blew up, the Internet was rife with theories pulled out of people’s posteriors. AT&T killed the app because it competes with the SMS cash cow that lets the carrier overcharge for simple services. Apple was fearful of Chrome OS and wanted to kneecap Google.

I don’t buy any of that. Occam’s Razor suggests that the simple answer is usually the correct one. In this case, Apple saw something about the app they were nervous or unsure about and didn’t approve it. Apple’s history with rejections seem to show that they err on the side of caution. I’m not being an Apple apologist here. The Google Voice rejection still doesn’t sit well with me. I thought Apple was wrong in the past, and I think it may be wrong here. As reported by developers, the App Store process needs to be improved, and it’s taking too long to get it fixed.

Apple and AT&T are today expected to go to the Headmaster’s Study (in this case, the Federal Communications Commission) and, eyes down, shuffling feet and mumbling awkwardly, explain their recent behaviour regarding the much-publicized rejection of Google’s Voice app in the iTunes store.

If, perhaps, you’ve not yet heard about Google Voicegate, here’s a breakdown:

In late July, developer Sean Kovacs blogged that his app, a Google Voice client called GV Mobile, was being pulled from the app store for “duplicating features” that were bundled by default with the iPhone. He said he received the news in a phone call from an Apple rep who refused to email confirmation because, Kovacs suspected, they were “…too scared [he] would post it.”

Kovacs wasn’t alone. Several other third party Google Voice apps were pulled from the iTunes store and, finally, even Google’s own official app was turned down. Again, the reported reason was a “duplication” of existing, baked-in iPhone functionality.

Rumors almost immediately appeared on blogs everywhere, alleging the removals were at the behest of AT&T. The indomitable John Gruber of Daring Fireball fame first doubted AT&T was pulling the strings in their relationship with Apple, but later updated his commentary with;

“…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.”

After a few days of intense wailing and gnashing of teeth around the blogosphere, it emerged that the mighty FCC was asking pointed questions of both Apple and AT&T, including;

• Why did apple reject the Google Voice application and pull related apps from their store?
• Did Apple act alone, or did they consult with AT&T before acting?
• What role does AT&T have in app approval?

In fact, there are lots more pertinent questions for Apple and AT&T. Om Malik has the full set in an article he published earlier this month analyzing the entire sordid affair.

It will be deeply interesting to hear the answers to those questions not only because they should explain what really happened in the lead-up to Google Voicegate, but also shed light on Apple’s internal app store management policies (assuming, of course, they even have any they care to enforce — judging from the hit-and-miss nature of app store approvals, we’d be forgiven for thinking Apple has been making it up as they go).

Back to today. While Apple and AT&T wriggle and squirm under the FCC’s disapproving glare, Google will also be filing comments. But as Leslie Cauley reports in USA Today, Google may soon find themselves in the hot seat, and for very much the same bad behavior;

“Consumers who use Android, the Google-developed operating system for wireless devices, can’t use Skype… Android users get Skype Lite, a watered-down version of the original that routes calls over traditional phone networks — not the Internet. As a result, long-distance calls are still cheap or free, but cellphone minutes are gobbled up every time a Skype Lite call is made.”

Cauley quotes Ben Scott, of consumer advocacy group Free Press;

“[Google] is in an awkward spot. On the one hand, their application is being blocked on the Apple App Store. But on the other hand, they engaged in similar behavior [with Skype]”

Cauley says the FCC has asked Google to describe its process for “considering and approving” applications, a question it also asked of Apple.

So that’s the latest. And, really, how can this end well for Apple? There are two possibilities; it will emerge they were not influenced (coerced?) by AT&T, or it will emerge they were.

If it’s the former, Apple will be admitting they have completely mismanaged the App Store service, applying approval criteria inconsistently and treating software developers with little or no uniformity and absolutely no respect.

If it’s the latter, Apple will be admitting they selectively pulled apps from their store in order to placate a business partner that, let’s face it, has provided less-than-stellar service to Apple’s iPhones customers for the last two years. If that’s the case, Apple have demonstrated little-to-no respect for developers and end users.

Unless Google is raked over the coals by the FCC, they’ll come out of this looking like innocent victims of shady dealings, a political tug-of-war between Apple and AT&T that has hurt the search giant and its poor, unsuspecting customers.

What will the outcome of all this be? Hefty fines for Apple and AT&T? An overhaul of the App Store review and approval processes? Perhaps even a more transparent, community-led approval process? Whatever the outcome, surely this will be one more nail in the coffin for Apple’s exclusive partnership with AT&T.

Steve Jobs, Jon Rubinstein, Ed Colligan

According to Bloomberg, former Palm CEO Ed Colligan rejected an offer by Steve Jobs to refrain from hiring each other’s employees.

Similar allegations have been made regarding Apple and Google recently, though in that instance the policy was supposedly an informal and undocumented one, but with Palm there are “communications” involved.

“We must do whatever we can to stop this,” said Steve Jobs on the issue of “poaching” employees, the practice of hiring away highly-capable individuals from one company to another. In the most notable example of employees sharing between the two companies, Jon Rubinstein, SVP of Apple’s iPod division until 2006, later became Executive Chairman of the Board at Palm, and was a driving force behind the company-saving Pre initiative. This seems to have not sat well with Steve Jobs, hence his “communication” with Ed Colligan in 2007 about Rubinstein attempting to recruit more Apple employees. Colligan’s reported reply was short, but succinct.

“Your proposal that we agree that neither company will hire the other’s employees, regardless of the individual’s desires, is not only wrong, it is likely illegal.”

It certainly would be a violation of anti-trust law, if it happened. Considering this incident occurred two years ago, it’s remarkable that the Department of Justice hasn’t been interested, which Palm claims it isn’t. Of course, it’s possible Colligan didn’t release details of a “likely illegal” offer until recently, but that seems odd, too. Also odd is the fact that no one knows what exactly Jobs wanted Colligan to do.

According to Bloomberg, the “exact details of what Jobs proposed to Colligan aren’t known; Jobs didn’t mention a proposal in the communications reviewed by Bloomberg.” So, to sum up, there is nothing written down, the “communication” was verbal, two years old, and originates from a company with an increasingly bitter relationship with Apple.

Don’t expect to see Steve Jobs doing doing a perp walk anytime soon over this one.

Lately, Google Voice is perhaps one of the most widely discussed products in the Apple blogosphere besides Apple’s own native devices. With its rejection from the App Store and people pointing fingers at Apple, AT&T, Steve Jobs and just about everyone and everything else in between, new evidence put forth by Andy Kessler and The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) directs blame squarely at AT&T. Rightfully so.

Is anyone really surprised?

We know that AT&T and every other cell phone carrier overcharges for service, taking into account the sheer volume of users and how long cell phone technology has been around. Considering how much providing basic cell phone service costs, and how relatively inexpensive it is to add text messages and data support, it’s clear that companies like AT&T stand to make a pretty penny.

I mean, honestly; it costs an extra $20 a month for unlimited texting in addition to $30 a month for “unlimited” iPhone data usage. Really? Text messaging costs two-thirds the price of always-on, feature rich email? Emails that support video, audio and images; something iPhone users still aren’t getting because of a lack of MMS support. There’s just no way the pricing structure is based on the product.

Looking at the Big Picture

The WSJ report reveals that AT&T’s profit margin for its wireless services are considered high at 25%. It makes sense, considering many people likely pay extra for hefty plans (data, text, video, etc.), when the actual impact on AT&T’s network is marginal. Granted, sometimes coverage is spotty and “crowded” but the fact is, that’s not because we’re causing too much strain on the network, it’s because AT&T should be investing in making these networks more interoperable with others and capable of carrying more users, but is instead price gouging customers for increasingly horrible service.

Are they taking advantage of us? Yes. We know that. (Even David Pogue agrees with his “Take Back The Beep Campaign”) So why on earth would AT&T quietly stand aside and allow Google Voice, since it represents such a dramatic shift from the norm? Google knows that voice calls and text messages are very easy on bandwidth. AT&T knows that allowing Google to steal its profits marks the end of an era. Landlines gave and continue to give ground to cell phones, and customers are switching to VoIP services or other mediums like Twitter or Google Voice for communication. Cell service might be next on the chopping block, if something like Google Voice is allowed to take root and grow.

The Future

Can AT&T reinvent itsefl and survive? The economy is tough, so now is the perfect time to be daring and really focus on your customers. Or will AT&T continue to overcharge and stifle innovation like Google Voice and other services? I personally hope that we will move towards a better future where carriers will play nicer with each other, with other services, and with other emerging technologies. For example, wouldn’t it be great if when I was at home, my iPhone routed calls over my Wi-Fi connection instead of over the “crowded” network? It might alleviate some of AT&T’s service outages. Things like this are possible, but only in consumers wield their power and demand that carriers provide them.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Apple’s Board of Directors will meet Tuesday concerning the vacancy left by Google CEO Eric Schmidt’s departure. Schmidt resigned two weeks ago over potential conflicts of interest between Google and Apple.

The Journal is also reporting — really, stating the obvious — that Apple COO Tim Cook tops the short list of candidates. Cook, who ran Apple’s day-to-day operations during Steve Job’s absence earlier this year, would be the second board member actually working the for the company. Looking at the current board, he seems like an excellent choice.

• Bill Campbell, Chairman and former CEO of Intuit Corp., is probably a head scratcher for anyone forced to use Quicken for the Mac. He used to work for Apple and came with Jobs when the latter returned in 1997.
• Millard Drexler, Chairman and CEO of J. Crew, has arguably contributed to the success of the company. He played a part in bringing the retail stores into being.
• Al Gore, former Vice President of the United States and current environmental advocate, perhaps keeps Greenpeace from coming down too hard on Apple. His name definitely brings stature to the company.
• Steve Jobs, Apple CEO, has done nothing less than save the company from destruction.
• Andrea Jung, Chairman and CEO of Avon, is the token female if you are cynical, a breath of fresh air if not. Before running Avon, a company selling cosmetics that is about a tenth the size of Apple, she was a VP at Neiman Marcus — still not seeing the fit with Apple. Jung also serves on the board of GE, though, so there is that.
• Arthur D. Levinson, Chairman of Genentech, is another mystery, though he may not be on the board much longer, or at least a board. Levinson also serves on the board of Google.
• Jerry York, Chairman, President and CEO Harwinton Capital, has some business chops. Being a former CFO for both IBM and Chysler, he also served on the board of GM. York was a part of the return of Jobs in 1997, too.

Considering the control Steve Jobs asserts over the company, in a sense it’s hard to see how the board matters. However, if considerations include a possible successor to Steve Jobs as CEO at some point in the future — distant future, hopefully — Cook, 49, again seems a logical choice.

When it came out that Google Voice had been refused entry into the hallowed halls of Apple’s App store, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth. While I don’t have a horse in this race, or was driven to riot, I’ll admit to a certain amount of supplying villagers with pitchforks and torches.

The New York Times’ David Pogue is reporting that Google is planning on releasing Google Voice as an iPhone-optimized web app.

“Already, Google says it is readying a replacement for the Google Voice app that will offer exactly the same features as the rejected app—except that it will take the form of a specialized, iPhone-shaped Web page. For all intents and purposes, it will behave exactly the same as the app would have; you can even install it as an icon on your Home screen.”

Google’s Latitude App came back to life as a web app after being killed off at birth by the App Store.

“We worked closely with Apple to bring Latitude to the iPhone in a way Apple thought would be best for iPhone users. After we developed a Latitude application for the iPhone, Apple requested we release Latitude as a web application in order to avoid confusion with Maps on the iPhone, which uses Google to serve maps tiles.”

OK, that one’s actually funny. What Apple is saying is: We think your app is going to confuse people with this other app that uses your data, too.

When Apple first announced the iPhone and tried to sell us on its utopia of web apps being far superior to a native app, I wasn’t impressed. Sure, my iPhone has a near-constant Internet connection — except for those times I can’t coax a signal to save my life. I’m still not sold on them, but apps like Google Voice might be making me come around a little.

I use Google Reader on my iPhone, and its iPhone page is, for all intents and purposes, a web app. Granted, it’s useless without an Internet connection, but since its goal is to read RSS feeds, I’m not dismayed it’s not native — unless, of course I want to download them for reading on a plane.

An app like Google Voice, which, again, relies on a connection of some sort, could do very well as a web app. A potential deal breaker could be the lack of push notifications for new messages. However, I could see Google getting an app that’s just a notifier for Google Voice through the approval process. It’s not a big stretch to see an app that displays a badge for a message a link that opens the web app.

While I don’t think a web app is an alternative for a lot of the rejected apps — I’d hate to have an e-book reader as a web app — apps that rely on a network connection I don’t have a big issue with it. On the other hand, as in an app like Latitude, it’d be nice to have the location pushed up to Google automatically without needing to open the web app.

How about you? Where do you find web apps a suitable workaround for the App Store?

Former Apple Board of Directors member and current Google CEO Eric Schmidt wasn’t paid for his time at Cupertino. This despite Apple’s habitual practice of offering stock options and a $50,000 retainer to Board members, both of which Schmidt declined during his tenure.

Instead, like other board members, Schmidt settled for some awesome Apple gear in exchange for his contribution to the board. According to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and BusinessWeek, the Google CEO accepted $8,712 worth of goods, though no specific breakdown of what sort of hardware that number actually represents has been reported.

We do know that board members are entitled to one of each new Apple product released while they’re an active member, and that they receive additional hardware discounts over and above that. Thanks to this sweet deal, Al Gore took home $13,161 and Arthur Levinson $8,923. I’ll bet a hefty portion of those numbers actually accounts for Apple’s ridiculously over-priced customization options.

Apple board members are also allowed up to 30,000 of company stock, with an option to buy up to 10,000 more per year. Schmidt passed up the opportunity, however, choosing instead to buy 10,000 shares on the open market with his own money in 2006.

Schmidt also received a mystery “commemorative gift” valued at $7,580. Many other Apple execs received similar gifts, including COO Tim Cook, but details about what exactly was gifted remain unknown. A MacBook Pro with the Apple logo on the lid replaced with an etched likeness of the giftee’s face, perhaps? Whatever it was, I’m fairly sure I want one.

Turning down the lucrative extras that come along with being a high-ranked tech executive has become Schmidt’s M.O., so it’s not really surprising to find that he was working at Apple for comped hardware. At Google, he famously only receives a $1 per year salary, and in recent years has been turning down stock option perks from the search giant as well.

If nothing else, the FTC’s investigation into the close links between Apple and Google should pull back the curtain and provide more revelatory looks into the inner workings of some of Silicon Valley’s biggest players. Schmidt recently stepped down from the Apple board amid accusations that the two companies were too closely involved with one another, and involved in a relationship that could potentially be construed as a non-competitive arrangement. Google and Apple still share a common board member, however, as Arthur Levinson, former CEO of Genentech, is still a sitting member of both.

As we reported here yesterday, Apple announced Eric Schmidt resigned from its Board of Directors. The announcement really came as no surprise; Schmidt is the CEO of Google, a software giant that, for the last few years, has been inching inexorably into Apple’s desktop and mobile territories.

So it should also come as no surprise that Consumer Watchdog is now calling for another of Apple’s board of directors, this time Arthur D. Levinson to follow Schmidt’s example.

Consumer Watchdog is a nonprofit, nonpartisan consumer advocacy organization. Group member John M. Simpson writes:

“It took Eric Schmidt far to [sic] long too [sic] realize that the two roles are incompatible; that’s not surprising considering the clubby atmosphere of Silicon Valley. Nonetheless, we’re glad Schmidt finally did the right thing; we call on Levinson to act responsibly and choose one company or the other.”

Levinson’s a busy guy. Besides sitting on Apple’s Board of Directors, he also has a seat on Google’s board. In April, he was appointed chairman of the board at Genentech. He’s also a member of the Jedi High Council. (No, that one’s a lie, but it wouldn’t surprise me…)

Simpson reports Genentech has ties with Google beyond sharing a senior executive.

It is an investor, with Google, in the direct-to-consumer genetic testing company, 23andMe, run by Anne Wojcicki. She is the wife of Sergey Brin, Google’s co-founder.

Simpson reminds readers that the Federal Trade Commission has, “for several months,” been investigating Apple and Google for violating antitrust laws by sharing directors.

Schmidt never had a chance — he had to step down sooner or later. But Levinson could surely get out of this one:

Levinson: You don’t need to investigate us.

FTC: We don’t need to investigate you.

Levinson: This is not the antitrust case you’re looking for.

FTC: This is not the antitrust case we’re looking for.

Levinson (indicates Jobs): He can go about his business.

FTC: You can go about your business.

Levinson: Now move along.

FTC: Move along, move along…

Sorry. Couldn’t resist.

With invites going out every day and Google and Apple being in the news many times over because of the rejection of its native Google Voice app for the iPhone, many are giving this service a close look. If you’re a Mac or iPhone user, here are some tips that’ll help you get the most out of this service.

Unlocked Phone? Free calls!

Though officially iPhone users in the U.S. should be on the AT&T network, if you’re using another carrier, you may be able to use your Google Voice number to get around your monthly allotment of minutes. Some carriers, like T-Mobile, offer the ability to provide a list of “frequently” used numbers that do not impact the minutes allowed on a monthly plan. Since Google is footing the bill for connecting calls between a Google Voice number and any other number inside the U.S., simply adding your Google number to your “favorite list” results in free calls. It’s too bad AT&T doesn’t support this feature.

No GV Mobile? No problem!

The internets were in a tizzy last week over the removal of GV Mobile from Apple’s App Store, leaving iPhone users with Google’s mobile website to place calls. If you are one of few who have jailbroken your phone, you can find GV Mobile through Cydia. For more information, check out Sean Kovacs website.

If jailbreaking isn’t your bag, then no problem! The traditional way that Google Voice works is that you simply call your Google Voice number and then press “2.” From here, you can dial the outgoing call as normal. For those who frequently are calling contacts with their Google Voice number, here’s a quick way to simplify the process.

In your iPhone’s address book, you can add another number for a contact and format it so that your iPhone does all the dirty work of calling Google and connecting the call for you.

The process is simple. Create a new contact entry for your desired contact and for their number, insert your own Google number. Then press the “+*#” key and then the “pause” button to insert a pause. Now type a “2” followed by another “pause” and finally the desired phone number for the contact. Now you’ve told your iPhone to dial Google, initiate a new call and contact the number you’ve selected. Here’s how it should look:

Though dialing will take slightly longer, it’s all automated and the other person will see your Google number when their phone rings! Depending on your settings, you may also need to input your PIN number with appropriate pauses. Also, make sure your Google Voice account is setup to allow direct access to voicemail when calling from your phone. These options are all in your Google Voice settings.

Google Voice On Your Mac

If your browser of choice is Firefox, developer Chad Smith has developed a plugin that quickly allows users to click any phone number on the web and dial and connect via their Google Voice number. This free plugin is available here.

Are you a Google Voice user? Have you discovered other neat tips and tricks? Do you love it? Do you hate it? Sound off and share your thoughts!

Google CEO Eric Schmidt has resigned from Apple’s Board of Directors. Given the conflicts of interest, this is not unexpected — Schmidt had already recused himself from any iPhone discussion, and now that Google is getting into the OS business, I guess that would leave Schmidt free to talk about hardware.

Apple CEO Steve Jobs issued a statement confirming Schmidt’s departure as well as offering praise for Schmidt’s past work on the board:

“Eric has been an excellent Board member for Apple, investing his valuable time, talent, passion and wisdom to help make Apple successful,” Jobs said. “Unfortunately, as Google enters more of Apple’s core businesses, with Android and now Chrome OS, Eric’s effectiveness as an Apple board member will be significantly diminished, since he will have to recuse himself from even larger portions of our meetings due to potential conflicts of interest. Therefore, we have mutually decided that now is the right time for Eric to resign his position on Apple’s board.”

While we are now free to discuss how “mutual” the decision was — it’s been my experience any “mutual decision” for a separation is a “mutually decided upon bundle of cash as we kick your sorry butt out the door” — I much prefer Fake Steve Jobs’ take on the situation.

First it was just apps that gave users access to Google Voice features, but now it seems as though even an official app from Google, who have traditionally been very close with Apple, will not (for now) see the light of day. GV Mobile and Voice Central, two apps that allowed Google Voice users to access the service on their iPhone have been pulled from the App Store for duplicating functionality, and an official Google Voice app won’t see release at all for the same reason.

According to a Google spokesperson speaking to TechCrunch, Apple received the app submission from the internet search giant six weeks ago, and “did not approve the Google Voice application.” Apple has bandied about the feature duplication defense before, when they rejected Podcaster prior to releasing their own integrated podcast direct search and download section to the iPhone’s iTunes store.

Unless Apple somehow plans to introduce their own built-in Google Voice support in the near future, a scenario which I find highly unlikely, then this particular use of the feature duplication line is completely ridiculous. Google Voice isn’t actually duplicating anything, it’s only reducing AT&T’s ability to make money, which suggests that the wireless provider has much more control over Apple and their approval process than I previously suspected.

Through Google Voice, people can have one number for all of their phones, free long distance calling, and free text messaging. Two of these would obviously cut into AT&T’s bottom line, since users would no longer have to pay AT&T’s exorbitant service charges for messaging and cellular long distance. In fact, Google Voice customers could probably pare down to a bare minimum data plan and still retain all the functionality of their iPhone.

What makes Apple look particularly bad in this instance is that both BlackBerry and Android already have Google Voice apps available in their own app marketplaces, which, if Voice continues to grow, and expands beyond the U.S., could begin to have a serious effect on which device consumers invest in.

GV Mobile apparently received Phil Schiller’s personal seal of approval, so you know someone else is pulling the strings at Apple HQ to get these apps pulled. My question is, what threat does AT&T have that could force Apple to comply? An end to AT&T exclusivity would seem only to harm the company, not benefit it. There’s something to be said for not making your friends angry, sure, but there’s also no way you should let your friends direct internal policy. Maybe Apple should become an MVNO?