Google Can't Bear the Pressure, Shuts Down Free SMS Service for App Devs!

[sayam]

Innerfence recently launched an app named Infinite SMS which allowed you to send unlimited SMS for free. The service used a free service from Google currently in "Experimental" stages - according to Google. The app soon reached the Top 10 list on AppStore and that's where the trouble started.

According to Google, they had to cut them off because of the app's HUGE popularity; stating they were unable to cope with the expenses. And being an experimental service, Google was not willing to bear the extra costs, so BOOM - they blocked the developer.

The developer doesn’t have much to say but they have tried to express their grief in just a few short sentences.

Google has claimed no grievance with Infinite SMS other than its success. Their given reason for the block isn’t abuse or wrongdoing; it’s that we brought too many users (and thus too much cost) to an experimental service,

Seems like a tremendous fail for Google. Being one of the biggest in the cyber world, they were unable to hold the pressure from a single app? That should mean if your app is in TOP 10, you’re making big bucks. At the same time, though, should they have any responsibility at all for maintaining 100% free access to their services for folks to make a profit? If it wasn't in the TOS, then I don't see why they should feel any pressure NOT to block them.

For now, the app has been discontinued and we don't think it will re-appear soon. What about all those who have already purchased it? Many of them should be getting the Error Message 10 while sending.

The developer’s statement explains a bit about their situation as well.

Apple does not give app developers any way to perform refunds. Hopefully, at 99¢ people will feel like our app paid for itself after only a few messages.

[Innerfence]

[WalkingBird]

That's bad.....what's worst is the dev was making money off of a free service! Clever...

[Dryice]

AS CLOSE TO 1ST AS IM EVER GANNA GET!


Google = Fail

[labaom]

I really liked that application I got is a couple days before the downfall. I have no idea if they will like remake it with a new protocol. The only one I can think of is AIM. However, it sucks so much!!! Text4Free is much slower in sending/receiving and is far from the native iPhone OS feel. I am so sad... pitty google pitty!

[PRC777]

Oh well...that's Google for ya.

[huntor]

im sure apple told 'em to shut it down.

[greenleaf187]

what are they afraid of??? losing millions??

[LastSonOfKrypton]

im sure apple told 'em to shut it down.

or AT&T

[mrblader]

im sure apple told 'em to shut it down.

What?? Apple has nothing to do with texting other than supplying the default app and hosting the developers app.

Im sure they were upset about google shutting down the software, they were making 30% off each sale.

It is your service provider who had to cope with the losses not Apple...........
Why do people insist that Apple is always the culprit behind everything. Just like all those people who STILL THINK that they are the ones not supplying the community with MMS.

[greenstretracer]

30% off of a free service usually equal zero....that is if i understood this correctly and it was a free service.

either way apple definitely has an interest in ATT posting profits off of the iphone via sms charges. If ATT deems the iphone to be reaching into their profits they will be less likely to accommodate apple.

as far as Google, it does seem that they are becoming apples *****. Wasn't there another story about Google not using some technology because apple asked them not to?

[PcTran]

...I want my money back

[LastSonOfKrypton]

30% off of a free service usually equal zero....that is if i understood this correctly and it was a free service.

No. The app was 99 cents so Apple was making .30 cents off each sale. The service the app used was free. Smart dev IMHO.

[Happy Noodle Boy]

Did the dev at any point got in contact with Google? Seems to me if you're going to provide a service based on someone else's service, the least you could do is give them a heads up or ask for permission.

Especially on an experimental service which for all intents and purposes Google could close whenever they want.

To me, the "fail" falls entirely on the Dev for not letting Google know and for not having an alternative should the service go down.

This is like me charging for an email app then using gmail for the accounts.

[LastSonOfKrypton]

Anyone think Google might seek some of the $$$ the dev made from his/her app?

[huntor]

Why do people insist that Apple is always the culprit behind everything. Just like all those people who STILL THINK that they are the ones not supplying the community with MMS.

bc apple>at&t.
and bc apple can do w/e the hell they want.
if they actually wanted to add mms, they would.
at&t might cry a little, for reasons no one can understand.
but in the end apple would win, and so would we.

[daching]

That explains the error messages I'm getting.

[sziklassy]

that was kinda shady of the dev but I kind of doubt google will so anything. There are plenty of other apps out there that use other company's services.

[Channan]

No. The app was 99 cents so Apple was making .30 cents off each sale. The service the app used was free. Smart dev IMHO.

No more than any other dev that charges for their apps. They didn't just say "use Google to send texts and send me $1 for letting you know to do this." They still had to create the app that sends and receives texts.

But Google had every right to do this. The dev didn't sign a contract with Google to let them use Google's service. If you upload images to your own website and someone else puts up those images on their own site (hotlinking) which causes you to exceed your bandwidth limit, you have every right to delete the image file(s). How is this any different than what Google did?

[awesomeSlayer]

No wonder it wasn't working. I also wonder why it wasn't in the App Store.

[Jomann]

heh It was only 99 cents but it was my favorite app, anyone know another one thats like that one?