151–160 of 414 posts
A good reminder of what it would be like if we lived in a world where there is no Android and iOS is a monopoly. Apple's anti competitive behavior puts Microsoft of the 90s to shame.
IIRC, 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.
This is completely different from specify Samsung, Google, etc which would have nothing to do with the iOS app.
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.
Indeed but Apple is aware that the FTC isn't likely to punish them enough that the behavior will be a net negative.
If only the Federal Government would be as serious about "Sending a message" on antitrust as they are about low-mid level drug dealers, this kind of thing would be a lot more rare.
There's a lot of cries of monopoly in here, yet the iPhone is routinely outsold by Android phones. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
I see very few cries of monopoly, and many cries of antitrust. These are not the same thing, at all. This particular instance could be approaching a tying arrangement. It is certainly against the consumer's best interest. Also, under the Sherman act, conspiracy to monopoly is just as illegal as actual monopoly.
But on this issue, I think the accusations of illegal activity are absurd for multiple reasons.
1) Apple does not have anything near total domination in the mobile arena.
2) Apple clearly has a right to control the content in their App Store. Whether that's removing offensive material or just material they don't like.
3) This is not a new provision being brought out to squash Pebble.
If you want to go after Apple, go after the way they don't allow consumers to modify the software or install custom software on iOS. That's much more of a legitimate antitrust complaint than Apple controlling what content they host in the App Store.
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…
You seem to be suggesting that this isn't wrong just because a rule exists. That position is predicated on the assumption that the rules themselves cannot be wrong. It is essentially circular logic to try and avoid discussing the topic at all, and the fact you are arguing that "It shouldn't even made it in the top HN stories IMHO" is quite evident of that belief. An explanation of the rule doesn't really justify Appl…
This thinking is called "legal positivism". While famously used by soldiers after war crimes, it does not even apply in that case. Just because your laws or orders say so does not mean, that they are right, morally justified or that you will not get punished afterwards.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Antitrust requires a monopoly position, which Apple doesn't have (but Microsoft did have). Apple are being dicks and should be smacked down for it in the market, but I doubt antitrust would stick.
It's a duopoly, but in terms of revenue/prestige it's a de-facto monopoly. The simple fact is that that Apple can bully because NO developer can afford to walk away from the Apple App store; and the App Store is simply too big for the market to self-regulate. The anti-trust cases against Microsoft ultimately allowed Firefox, Opera, Chrome to flourish and eventually lead to the demise of IE's monopoly position.
I'd argue that Firefox, Chrome, and Opera did not flourish because of a court ruling, they did so because they were better in every sense than IE. Microsoft has never stopped anyone from downloading whatever browser they choose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
(not trying to troll you -- but I think you'd agree that they do, so it's not the freedom of the Internet. I do agree that there is a difference -- but I am having a hard time justifying it for myself)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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]
This sort of thing is business as usual at Apple.