Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

forums.getpebble.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 414 posts

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#141

Post by mc32 »

hub_ wrote: post #132
loumf wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple doesn't have control of the smart phone (or phone) market. Having control of the iPhone market is not considered monopolistic.

But they do have exclusive control of the distribution channels of apps for iOS. That's a monopoly.

That's a monopoly but it's not an economy monopoly. You have a monopoly over where you live, but that's not an economic monopoly. Monopoly is not a magic word. The FTC has very strict standards for when something is considered a monopoly. It's not the same as the general definition.

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#142

Post by sesteel »

loumf wrote: post #134
sesteel wrote: post #4

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.

Should Walmart, who has 100% market share of people walking in a Walmart right now, have control over what is on their shelves? Should Disney have control over what stores are on Disney Main St.? iPhones are not the only choice, so if you don't like how they work, you can choose not to buy them (because they have significant competition). The reason there are laws that limit monopoly behavior is because you wouldn't…

This is actually a great analogy. If the AppStore was a physical store, I would agree; but I still don't agree and that actually surprises me. The freedom of the internet has shaped my expectations around this issue.

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#143

Post by loumf »

zamalek wrote: post #106
clarkmoody wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The App Store is Apple's private property. Historically this hasn't been a hurdle for litigation. However, the floral language I used isn't only a result of the App Store - it arises from the many instances of this type of behavior. Take the interaction between iTunes and iDevices as another example. Want to use Winamp to manage your music? Tough. Want to get apps from another store? Tough. Want to browse your phon…

Microsoft had a monopoly on OSs for PCs, so they were not allowed to use that to give another piece of software an advantage. They did not simply have a monopoly on Windows users.

In order to be regulated under Anti-trust, Apple would need to have a monopoly on some market that isn't simply described as "their customers". The closest they came was iPod, but it looks like that hovered around 75%

http://stratechery.com/2010/apple-innovators-dilemma/

So, would probably not fall under anti-trust.

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#144

Post by dragonwriter »

loumf wrote: post #112
mey wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under US law, it would be anti-competitive to use market control to stifle competition. I agree on your point about android, but you should be able to see what the software supports. Of course a court would need to decide, IANAL etc

Apple doesn't have control of the smart phone (or phone) market. Having control of the iPhone market is not considered monopolistic.

"Control" is not the relevant test, market power is, and the prime test for market power is having the ability within some (even small) range to increase prices (or possibly more generally increase price-to-feature mix) without sales moving to competitors. Its not an easy test to apply, and its possible for more than one player in the same general market (e.g., smartphones) to have market power, or for a player that isn't absolutely dominant -- or even the #1 seller -- in a market to have market power in that market.

Without having done any kind of structured data gathering and analysis, my intuitive impression is that it is not all that unlikely that a finding of market power for Apple in the smartphone market could be supported, and that therefore anticompetitive leveraging of its position in that market to build a stronger market position in the smart watch market could be an antitrust violation.

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#145

Post by enraged_camel »

hub_ wrote: post #132
loumf wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple doesn't have control of the smart phone (or phone) market. Having control of the iPhone market is not considered monopolistic.

But they do have exclusive control of the distribution channels of apps for iOS. That's a monopoly.

Well, sure, they have control over their own platform. Monopolies are about markets though, and Apple is hardly a monopoly in the smart device app market.

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#146

Post by danmaz74 »

alanscarpa wrote: post #20

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…

> Their app store - their rules

IANAL, but this rule seriously smells of abuse of a dominant position.

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#147

Post by jasonlotito »

mikeash wrote: post #90
toxican wrote: post #2

I 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 violati…

This comment is far more true than people realize. And the worst part is, it's not an exaggeration in the slightest.

> You cannot point to the acceptance of one app as evidence that some rule isn't being applied to another app.

This is something they won't even discuss if you question how other apps can have some feature they may not like. You could have the same exact feature, and you'll get rejected.

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#148

Post by [deleted] »

rrss1122 wrote: post #109
d0m wrote: post #76

It's a bit tricky. I agree with most comments here that Apple is in the right to control what appear in the description and metadata. Not just from a competitive standpoint but in a way to make the it better for the user experience. That being said, in the Pebble case, I think it makes the user experience worst for the user. I.e. if I have a pebble watch and am looking for an iphone app that play well with it, I'd wa…

"It seems like Apple is doing that as a way to kill competition and promote their own watch, which is fair from a business standpoint." It's nowhere near fair. It's extremely anticompetitive. This is the kind of behavior that gets a company in trouble with the FTC.

[deleted]

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#149

Post by bjt »

loumf wrote: post #112
mey wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under US law, it would be anti-competitive to use market control to stifle competition. I agree on your point about android, but you should be able to see what the software supports. Of course a court would need to decide, IANAL etc

Apple doesn't have control of the smart phone (or phone) market. Having control of the iPhone market is not considered monopolistic.

In antitrust cases, much of the game is in delineating the bounds of the relevant market. Apple would argue for it being really wide, as you have done.

One of the other comments here argues for it being "the market for iOS apps", which is far narrower, and seems way too narrow to me. If Apple built the device, and the OS, and the marketplace, of course they're going to have a monopoly there. Just like Walmart has a monopoly on things sold at Walmart.

A definition of the market that seems sensible to me would be the "mobile device apps" market. There, Apple is one of two players with any significant market share. It's not a monopoly, but it's probably enough "market power", in the antitrust sense, to draw scrutiny from regulators.

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#150

Post by dragonwriter »

jonhohle wrote: post #28
sesteel wrote: post #4

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.

Apple has no monopoly in any market. Their platform terms and conditions may (or may not) be draconian, but what antitrust concerns can be taken seriously? Apple owns a small (but profitable) share of every market in which they operate.

> Apple has no monopoly in any market.

Antitrust "monopolies" aren't monopolies in the sense of no other players, they are monopolies in the sense of practical lack of competitive pressure displayed through market power (also known as pricing power) which is the ability, within some -- potentially narrow -- range to raise prices without losing sales to competitors (hence "pricing power", but market power could perhaps also be demonstrated by being able to make other adverse changes without driving sales from the party with market power to competitors.)

In a sense, this does match the "no competition" definition, in that having market power indicates that while there may be other players -- or even bigger players -- in a named market, they aren't in a practical sesne actually acting as competitors in the sense of economic theory, because the goods are revealed by market behavior not to be substitutes.

Post reply on HN