Options under review as car buyers flood rebate program

Read more here:
Cash For Clunkers Faces Funding Speed Bump

Recent app rejections, including Google Voice, have developers—and the FCC—asking Apple to clarify its criteria

See more here:
iPhone Apps: What Makes Apple Say No?

Continued here:
CARS Program Website

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. economy contracted at a slower-than-expected pace in the second quarter as the slump in business and residential investment moderated sharply, according to government data on Friday that backed views the recession was winding down.

Read the original post:
U.S. economy fares better than expected in latest quarter

Q: A lot of credit card companies seem to be changing fixed-rate cards to variable rates. Does the new credit card law treat these types of rates differently? — Bev…

Original post:
Fixed-rate cards dwindling

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Chevron Corp reported a 71 percent drop in second-quarter profit Friday as oil and gas prices fell from a year earlier and the economic slump shrank demand for fuel.

Go here to see the original:
Chevron profit tumbles, misses Wall Street view

DETROIT (Reuters) – Top U.S. auto dealer chain AutoNation Inc posted a 29 percent drop in quarterly earnings, but forecast an improving domestic vehicle market after slashing inventory costs and seeing a sharp gain in July sales.

View original here:
AutoNation profit down, but improving market seen

With his permission, I’m reprinting some comments made by Florida businessman Felix Santiago on Activerain.com, the excellent networking site for real estate agents. Santiago is in the business of helping homeowners negotiate the sale of their homes for less what they owe the bank– a process known as a short sale. I am in no way endorsing this business, but I think it’s good to get a lot of different voices on this blog. Everything that follows are the words of Mr. Santiago.

“ANYONE THAT TELLS YOU THEY KNOW THE SECRETS OF DOING SHORT SALES, RUN FROM THEM AS FAST AS YOU CAN! AND HERE ARE THE REASONS WHY…

The lenders still are not sure that what they are doing is right FOR THEM. They are constantly changing their short sale and loss mitigation process to figure out what will make the most return on the loss. It will change at the whim of those assigned to review the pipeline disaster that is their loss mitigation. And, time and time again, the changes usually are not for the best. They only further complicate the process. The banks are in the business to lend money. The whole loss mitigation and short sale business is still a blur to them. Think about how absurd this business is…they will forgive $300,000 on the property without blinking, but will kill a short sale for the remaining $5,000.

The housing crisis is NOWHERE NEAR A BOTTOM! The biggest reason for this is the tremendous amount of inventory. And I’m not simply talking about the inventory in the lender’s hands. I’m talking about inventory yet to be taken back. There are millions of homeowners living in their homes for free. I have clients going on 2 and 3 years without a mortgage payment. The lenders and their investors are simply overwhelmed by this crisis and they would rather see someone in the property taking care of it. Once they foreclose, they are responsible for all the bills on the house. Only 30% of the lender inventory is even available for sale. Nearly three times the current inventory is pending foreclosure. And unless everyone behind on their payments gets back to work and starts paying their mortgage, the crisis will not be going away any time soon.”

Read the rest here:
Short Sales, Fascination and Frustration

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Stock index futures turned negative after brief initial gains on Friday after data showed the economy contracted at a slower-than-expected pace than exped in the second quarter.

Read more from the original source:
Futures turn negative after GDP data

AT&T and Apple are asked why the app was rejected, but also about others that didn’t make the iPhone cut

Continued here:
FCC Examining Google iPhone App Rejection

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Forest products company Weyerhaeuser Co on Friday posted a wider second-quarter loss, hurt by weak demand from the construction industry, but results topped Wall Street expectations.

Weyerhaeuser loss tops Wall St forecast

Less than a year after T-Mobile and HTC released the first smart phone using Google’s Android operating system, the wireless operator and the handset maker are back with a sleeker device that takes advantage of recent software updates….

Excerpt from:
T-Mobile’s myTouch is sleeker and faster, but necessarily better

The Federal Communications Commission has sent letters to Apple and to AT&T and Google seeking information about the rejection of the Google Voice Application from the iTunes store. The letters ask why the application was rejected, and whether or not Apple removed other applications like it. I just downloaded copies of the letters from the FCC’s Web site, and have included links to them below. In the letter to Apple’s Catherine A. Novelli, Vice President for Worldwide Government Affairs, the commission asks: “Why did Apple reject the Google Voice application for iPhone and remove related third-party applications from its App Store?… Did Apple act alone, or in consultation with AT&T, in deciding to reject the Google Voice application and related applications? If the latter, please describe the communications between Apple and AT&T in connection with the decision to reject Google Voice. Are there any contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T that affected Apple’s decision in this matter?…Does AT&T have any role in the approval of iPhone applications generally (or in certain cases)? If so, under what circumstances, and what role does it play? What roles are specified in the contractual provisions between Apple and AT&T (or any non-contractual understandings) regarding the consideration of particular iPhone applications?” But the inquiry goes further that just the Google Voice matter. The commission asks about other VOIP applications that have been approved for the iPhone and about what other applications have been rejected generally. It then goes on to ask what the standards are for approving or rejecting applications and about the approval process. Apple has been directed to answer by Aug. 21. Apple declined to comment citing a policy for not commenting regulatory matters. The Commission’s letter to AT&T asks about what role if any AT&T played in considering the Google Voice app, and what role it plays if any in applications generally, and if any such roles are spelled out in the contractual relationship between Apple and AT&T. It also seeks copies of any communications between them on the subject as well as copies of communications between Apple, AT&T and Google, including summaries of meetings or contacts on the matter. The commission also asks what I think is a key question: “Please explain whether, on AT&T’s network, consumers’ access to and usage of Google Voice is disabled on the iPhone but permitted on other handsets, including Research in Motion’s BlackBerry devices.” I have Google Voice on my Blackberry, which I concede runs not on AT&T but on Verizon. But if AT&T — theoretically speaking — can insist that Apple disable a Google Voice app on the iPhone, but can’t insist that Research In Motion, or another handset vendor do the same then I have a problem agreeing with the conclusion that this decision was taken at AT&T’s behest. What’s good enough for the Blackberry is good enough for the iPhone. An AT&T spokesman repeated his company’s position that all decisions relating to applications for the iPhone are Apple’s and Apple’s alone. “We have received the letter and will of course respond to it. AT&T does not manage or approve applications for the app store,” a spokesman just told me minutes ago, and he otherwise referred me to Apple, who as you know has so far declined to comment. The Commission’s letter to Google, asks for what explanation if any was given to Google for the rejection of the application. It further asks what other Google applications are available and if there are any others pending. It also asks what the standards are for considering applications for the Android platform. One other interesting point that appears in all three letters: “Blanket” requests for confidentiality in this matter, are deemed unacceptable, which means that we will get to see at least some of the answers from all three companies as a matter of public record. FCC’s letter to Apple. FCC’s letter to AT&T. FCC’s letter to Google.

Read more from the original source:
FCC Examines Google iPhone App Rejection

The Federal Communications Commission has sent letters to Apple and to AT&T and Google seeking information about the rejection of the Google Voice Application from the iTunes store.

The letters ask why the application was rejected, and whether or not Apple removed other applications like it. I just downloaded copies of the letters from the FCC’s Web site, and will include links to them below.

In the letter to Apple’s Catherine A. Novelli, Vice President for Worldwide Government Affairs, the commission asks: “Why did Apple reject the Google Voice application for iPhone and remove related third-party applications from its App Store?… Did Apple act alone, or in consultation with AT&T, in deciding to reject the Google Voice application and related applications? If the latter, please describe the communications between Apple and AT&T in connection with the decision to reject Google Voice. Are there any contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T that affected Apple’s decision in this matter?…Does AT&T have any role in the approval of iPhone applications generally (or in certain cases)? If so, under what circumstances, and what role does it play? What roles are specified in the contractual provisions between Apple and AT&T (or any non-contractual understandings) regarding the consideration of particular iPhone applications?”

But the inquiry goes further that just the Google Voice matter. The commission asks about other VOIP applications that have been approved for the iPhone and about what other applications have been rejected generally. It then goes on to ask what the standards are for approving or rejecting applications and about the approval process. Apple has been directed to answer by Aug. 21. Apple declined to comment citing a policy for not commenting regulatory matters.

The Commission’s letter to AT&T asks about what role if any AT&T played in considering the Google Voice app, and what role it plays if any in applications generally, and if any such roles are spelled out in the contractual relationship between Apple and AT&T. It also seeks copies of any communications between them on the subject as well as copies of communications between Apple, AT&T and Google, including summaries of meetings or contacts on the matter.

The commission also asks what I think is a key question: “Please explain whether, on AT&T’s network, consumers’ access to and usage of Google Voice is disabled on the iPhone but permitted on other handsets, including Research in Motion’s BlackBerry devices.” I have Google Voice on my Blackberry, which I concede runs not on AT&T but on Verizon. But if AT&T — theoretically speaking — can insist that Apple disable a Google Voice app on the iPhone, but can’t insist that Research In Motion, or another handset vendor do the same then I have a problem agreeing with the conclusion that this decision was taken at AT&T’s behest. What’s good enough for the Blackberry is good enough for the iPhone.

An AT&T spokesman repeated his company’s position that all decisions relating to applications for the iPhone are Apple’s and Apple’s alone. “We have received the letter and will of course respond to it. AT&T does not manage or approve applications for the app store,” a spokesman just told me minutes ago, and he otherwise referred me to Apple, who as you know has so far declined to comment.

The Commission’s letter to Google, asks for what explanation if any was given to Google for the rejection of the application. It further asks what other Google applications are available and if there are any others pending. It also asks what the standards are for considering applications for the Android platform.

One other interesting point that appears in all three letters: “Blanket” requests for confidentiality in this matter, are deemed unacceptable, which means that we will get to see at least some of the answers from all three companies as a matter of public record.

FCC’s letter to Apple.

FCC’s letter to AT&T.

FCC’s letter to Google.

Go here to see the original:
FCC Now Looking Into Apple’s Rejection of Google Voice App

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Stock index futures edged higher on Friday as investors bet that key economic data will show the economic slump is ebbing.

See more here:
Futures up before GDP figures, but Disney slips