re⋅ject
3. to refuse to accept (someone or something);
source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reject
Seem to me like the "reject"/"not approve" disparity is splitting hairs.However, there is a big difference between an app being still under review and being rejected.
Arrington's language claiming that Apple's answer to the FCC was "a total lie" reminds me of Dick Cheney talking about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There's "overwhelming evidence"? And that's enough for you to accuse Apple of lying to the FCC on TechCrunch? Obviously not all journalists hold themselves to the same standards.
Google's response at the time sounded pretty final: "We will continue to work to bring our services to iPhone users, for example, by taking advantage of advances in mobile browsers."
The companies that get reported on are no better with their "We definitely won't be doing X" and then they do X.
I think this story isn't grounded very well but there's a kind of precedent with Apple's DRM play with iTunes.
I do get tired of bloggers disputing what should be fact by mixing it with rumors or secondary sources...
[techcrunch quote]: "The first part of Apple’s argument, that they never rejected the application, is “a total lie,” according to many sources with knowledge of the Google Voice application process." ... "There is overwhelming evidence that Apple did in fact reject the application."
[daringfireball quote]: "Google’s initial statement regarding this did not use the word rejected either. Their spokesperson told TechCrunch: “Apple did not approve the Google Voice application we submitted six weeks ago to the Apple App Store.”"
Who is trying to mislead us here? Techcrunch throws unnamed "overwhelming evidence" and unnamed "sources" at my face, while daringfireball talks about Google's "initial" statement. Was there a second or third statement that cleared things up?
Anybody have the facts?