Google Voice embraced by Apple?

Could it not be a matter of perspective?

From a sales perspective, when the Google Voice was initially submitted to the iPhone, the question of whether the iPhone was going to be a real success was still up in the air. Also, the exclusivity deals are falling by the wayside and Apple probably doesn't have to bow down to pressure from them as much. Now I assume they are confident that simply allowing a Google App isn't going to damage them, but actually help them a it starts to remove the gaps between Android and iPhone (excluding walled garden and all).

This is actually simple.

No, AT&T did not specifically intervene in the google app approval process. They didn't have to... It was in Apple's contract with AT&T to not allow IP calls, a term negotiated during the strong-arming apple used to get unlimited data for $20 including 200 free texts in the data plan (later changed to $30 without texts). Keep in mind, the original contracts between Apple and (Cingular) were done when the iPhone had no 3rd party apps at all. AT&T had already negotiated their changes to the cingular contract before the 3G and the SDK were released. (they had been negotiating deal changes since the day the bought Cingular).

With 3rd party apps on the scene, and unlimited data, AT&T had to protect their minute plans from ViOP calling. So it was in contract. At least, we're mostly certain it was, as AT&T later, publically, made a statement that they changed their terms of use and VoIP was now an approved OTA technology, thus voiding the pre-exiting terms in Apples-AT&T deal. Skype and others very quickly took hold of this, once Apple's legal team took some time to confirm the AT&T line items in their own contract were equally effected when end user terms were updated. Google however is a special case as its a redirection service, not really a VoIP system, and its certainly taken extra time to negotiate that (especially with the whole free texts thing, and callerID redirection).

Apple, under AT&Ts non disclosure of their mutual contract terms, could not publicly communicate the reason they had to previously reject google's app, so they made up the "replaces functionality" thing.

AT&T really is the reason google could not be approved, ecven though they were not directly involved. Likely, googles use of some internal functions were also questinoable, especially including the address book, and may have contributed. The fact it could directly dial calls from within its own interface, including auto-answering the incoming call connection, might have been an issue too. Finally the ability to potentially hide incoming callers behind false callerID put a kink in AT&T's "A-List" plan, something appel would I'm sure also be held to protect under secret contracts.