11–20 of 183 posts
Apple has a very interesting approach to these type of app monopolies. It "nationalizes" the monopoly app by creating a generic version of the same app. The problem is, the generic app versions are exceptional in that they have much deeper access to the phone than a traditional independently built App Store app. Seems unfair.
Apple has a very interesting approach to these type of app monopolies. It "nationalizes" the monopoly app by creating a generic version of the same app. The problem is, the generic app versions are exceptional in that they have much deeper access to the phone than a traditional independently built App Store app. Seems unfair.
> It "nationalizes" the monopoly app by creating a generic version of the same app. Out of curiosity: Is there a generic version of RescueTime? > The problem is, the generic app versions are exceptional in that they have much deeper access to the phone than a traditional independently built App Store app. This is what Microsoft allegedly did with Office. Sysinternals' Mark Russinovic documented that so called "Native…
I still wonder how is this legal.
How could it be illegal? If you sold bread in a grocery store and the grocery store decided they preferred their own brand and didn't wanna sell yours anymore... would that be illegal?
[1]: https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/16/apples-app-store-revenue-n...
I still wonder how is this legal.
Because it should be legal for the owner of a store to decide not to sell a product, whatever the reason.
Apple has chosen to position itself as the only way to install apps, which I feel is generally fine, but as Apple's customer, I have every right to complain to them when they harm my experience with their product by denying me a product I want based purely on business decisions and that don't protect me.
In the "mobile apps" market, Apple is an overwhelming monopoly with 66% market share [1]. Some stats:
- Total app store market revenues for 1st half (1H) of 2018: ~$33B
- Apple's app-store revenue for 1H-2018: $22B
- Apple's market share: 66%
They constantly abuse their power and stifle competition by:
1. Banning apps (this app, steam streaming, ....)
2. Stifling the iOS browser's compliance with W3C spec, to force developers into their app store.
The EU and FTC should have ample data to stop this abuse.
[1]: https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/16/apples-app-store-revenue-n...
Apple has a very interesting approach to these type of app monopolies. It "nationalizes" the monopoly app by creating a generic version of the same app. The problem is, the generic app versions are exceptional in that they have much deeper access to the phone than a traditional independently built App Store app. Seems unfair.
Apple aren't interested in an even playing field, this type of muscling in is possible by design. There's a risk they'll turn developers off their platform, but providing they don't piss off too many at once, barely anyone will notice.
This case is because of the performance implications of persistent background location services, not because it competes with Apple. That logic makes no sense anyway since Apple makes money from this app! And, admittedly, similar apps haven’t been blocked, so clearly this isn’t a business “strategy” but one of technical implementation.
> Critically, using the persistent location API also allows us to use an acknowledged acceptable way to capture when our users have active screen time. They're admitting to using background location to infer screen time, which is clearly "misuse" according to section 2.5.4. Whether the decision is right or wrong, I find it hard to believe that the developer is actually confused by this.
They use it for location data to display where you are using your phone. They also use that location data to infer other things as well. Your comment makes it seem like they aren't using it for location data at all.
> Critically, using the persistent location API also allows us to use an acknowledged acceptable way to capture when our users have active screen time. They're admitting to using background location to infer screen time, which is clearly "misuse" according to section 2.5.4. Whether the decision is right or wrong, I find it hard to believe that the developer is actually confused by this.
I agree that users ought to be able to use the app without granting access to location data (opting out of #2). But unfortunately, if Apple provides no way of inferring screen time without use of location, this category of app is impossible.
I still wonder how is this legal.
How could it be illegal? If you sold bread in a grocery store and the grocery store decided they preferred their own brand and didn't wanna sell yours anymore... would that be illegal?