31–40 of 414 posts
I am no lawyer, but this sounds like an antitrust lawsuit waiting to happen. Apple, IMO, should not be allowed to monopolize their platform in this way.
Not sure what really is the big deal here... Apple had I think such requirements for not mentioning any other products or even mentioning pricing in your product description aka "On sale today only for $0.99" will get the same rejection... It is ok to put a % So this is nothing new and just one Apple employee/reviewers that follow the rules from the guidelines... If the folks that were submitting the app try to resub…
An explanation of the rule doesn't really justify Apple's actions in this case, or how this rule has been applied before and after Apple had a competitive product in this specific space. Overall I think Apple's actions are very anticompetitive (maybe not illegally so, but we can still judge/criticise them).
All in all Apple wants to make it harder to find a competitor's product on their store. So they're actually willing to hurt their customer's usability if it means also hurting a competitor's market share. Really shows what their priorities are.
PS - I'd criticise Google or Microsoft for exactly the same thing.
The title is misleading at best. Apple does not care what support you have. They just don't want you to advertise that in their app store.
Fascist? Yes. Surprising? No. New? Certainly not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
iOS is far from having a monopoly in the market (smartphones and tablets). No, monopoly over their devices doesn't count.
Vendor lock-in does count as monopolistic behaviour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in
may result in antitrust action against a monopoly.
The title is misleading at best. Apple does not care what support you have. They just don't want you to advertise that in their app store.
Makes sense. Apple doesn't want you using their app store in a way that could be promoting their competition. For example, maybe I'm browsing the app store for new apps and I come across this app in question. Reading the description I see it says something about the Pebble watch...hmmm..I've never heard of this. Now I look it up, it looks cool, I like it, now I want to buy the Pebble instead of the Apple watch. Their…
Not sure what really is the big deal here... Apple had I think such requirements for not mentioning any other products or even mentioning pricing in your product description aka "On sale today only for $0.99" will get the same rejection... It is ok to put a % So this is nothing new and just one Apple employee/reviewers that follow the rules from the guidelines... If the folks that were submitting the app try to resub…
Not sure what really is the big deal here... Apple had I think such requirements for not mentioning any other products or even mentioning pricing in your product description aka "On sale today only for $0.99" will get the same rejection... It is ok to put a % So this is nothing new and just one Apple employee/reviewers that follow the rules from the guidelines... If the folks that were submitting the app try to resub…
Apple had I think such requirements for not mentioning any other products... They have a line about not mentioning other mobile platforms. The latest version of SeaNav is 3.2.6, so it's been there for a while, with Apple happily accepting it and its description. What appears to have changed is Apple have decided that Pebble is a "mobile platform" only since the launch of the Apple Watch. That is arguably change to th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
iOS is far from having a monopoly in the market (smartphones and tablets). No, monopoly over their devices doesn't count.
Vendor lock-in does count as monopolistic behaviour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in
> Lock-in costs which create barriers to market entry may result in antitrust action against a monopoly.
It's anticompetitive behaviour that suddenly becomes relevant if you're a monopoly.