Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vendor lock-in does count as monopolistic behaviour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in
Monopolistic behaviour != has a monopoly.
They have a monopoly on the sale of iPhone apps, no?
Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
81–90 of 414 posts
Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
#82IIRC, this has to do with specifying "Pebble" and competitors in the App Store description. Same issue has occurred with apps that specify Samsung, Google, etc. in their descriptions and screenshots. You just have to remove them.
Sounds like a very arbitrary rule, also worthy of an anti-trust investigation. What's next? Censoring "Google" words from the iPhone keyboard and iMessage?
An antitrust case because apple are using their minority position in the market to tell developers not to advertise other platforms on theirs?
Sure, sounds appropriate.
Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
#83Why do people even feign objection at this point? You have built your house on someone else's land. Don't be surprised when they force you to tear down the guest house you just built.
It's funny that HN is normally so free-market that people here are happy to accept this sort of market feudalism: the company running the market for iOS apps gets to make their own rules, no matter how arbitrary.
Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
The truth is that it goes far beyond the unfairness to this specific developer and far beyond whether the developer neglected to check the TOS 4 years ago. Apple is a vile anti-competitive monstrosity. These jerks needed to be slammed with a lawsuit long before this one single example of their flamboyant and abundant anti-competitive behavior.
> Apple is a vile antitrust monstrosity. These jerks needed to be slammed with a lawsuit long before this one single example of their flamboyant and abundant anti-competitive behavior. While Apple are being increasingly huge dicks with their ecosystem I think you'd be hard-pressed with an antitrust case because Apple does not have a monopoly (or even a majority marketshare) on mobile devices.
I'll agree they're not a monopoly, but they're being highly anti-competetive, to a point that a legal remedy might actually be successful should the FTC or DOJ push it.
Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
#85Walled Gardens - stifling innovation since 2007. Nothing to see here, move on ...
Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
#86Flagged since this is complete non-news. Apple Watch is now an Apple product so it's now against the rules to mention Pebble in your app store description, a rule which has been around for a LONG time. EDIT: OK, OK. Unflagged since you apparently all really want to talk about this. :)
It's still a rule worth discussing. I hardly think this deserves to be flagged.
Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
#87I think I want to see more information before I grab my pitchfork. From the replies, > are you sure you're a developer? because this has been part of iOS submission guidelines for 4 years. (developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#metadata) I mean I really wouldn't put it past Apple to start enforcing this more aggressively because of the iWatch, but a forum post by some dev is hardly proof that Apple is inte…
The truth is that it goes far beyond the unfairness to this specific developer and far beyond whether the developer neglected to check the TOS 4 years ago. Apple is a vile anti-competitive monstrosity. These jerks needed to be slammed with a lawsuit long before this one single example of their flamboyant and abundant anti-competitive behavior.
The App Store is Apple's private property. As much as we disagree with its policies of mentioning Any Mobile OS Which Shall Not Be Named, we must allow Apple to do with its own property as it sees fit. This is the essence of liberty. As a developer, you are also at liberty to choose against developing for iOS if you disagree with Apple's policies.
Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
#88I think I want to see more information before I grab my pitchfork. From the replies, > are you sure you're a developer? because this has been part of iOS submission guidelines for 4 years. (developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#metadata) I mean I really wouldn't put it past Apple to start enforcing this more aggressively because of the iWatch, but a forum post by some dev is hardly proof that Apple is inte…
The truth is that it goes far beyond the unfairness to this specific developer and far beyond whether the developer neglected to check the TOS 4 years ago. Apple is a vile anti-competitive monstrosity. These jerks needed to be slammed with a lawsuit long before this one single example of their flamboyant and abundant anti-competitive behavior.
> Apple is a vile antitrust monstrosity.
I think you want to say "anti-competetive", not "antitrust". Antitrust legislation is what is used against anti-competitive companies. But yes, otherwise you are absolutely right: Apple's behaviour is monopolistic and unfair and "vile" is not unjustified.
Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
#89I 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.
iOS is far from having a monopoly in the market (smartphones and tablets). No, monopoly over their devices doesn't count.
> No, monopoly over their devices doesn't count.
Why not? They are influencing one market because of their control of another unrelated market.
Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
#90I think I want to see more information before I grab my pitchfork. From the replies, > are you sure you're a developer? because this has been part of iOS submission guidelines for 4 years. (developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#metadata) I mean I really wouldn't put it past Apple to start enforcing this more aggressively because of the iWatch, but a forum post by some dev is hardly proof that Apple is inte…
"By that logic" doesn't belong anywhere near a discussion of Apple review guidelines or behavior.
The only thing they are consistent about when reviewing iOS apps is being completely inconsistent. You cannot point to the acceptance of one app as evidence that some rule isn't being applied to another app.
Apple constantly rejects apps for claimed rule violations while allowing other apps through with identical violations. Apple frequently rejects app updates because of features which were in previous, accepted versions while claiming that the rule in question is not new. Apple frequently rejects apps for rules that aren't written down anywhere, which they insist are ironclad, and which disappear the moment you bring public attention to the situation.
It's like, Dr. Frankenstein is up in his castle doing some weird shit. Should we grab our pitchforks and torches, or should we see exactly what he's doing first? What if Dr. Frankenstein has been unleashing weird undead horrors upon the town at an average rate of once a week for the past seven years? At some point it becomes reasonable to just assume that he's up to the same stuff as usual.