Surely no one's actually surprised by this?
Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
161–170 of 414 posts
Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
#162It'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…
"I got tired of that 2 years ago and switched to android, haven't looked back since." And you just made my decision easier.
Meh. Android has come a long way, the Google flavor of it is the most well thought out and put together experience... But all in all, the experience sucks compared to iOS coupled with an iPhone. There are a lot of neat little widgets and gestures that come with Android, but the phones aren't as good. The software is no where near as good. I made the switch, I came crawling back to iOS.
Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have the same stance on Twitter? Twitter has a monopoly on the Twitter platform and may choose not to provide API keys for apps that it doesn't want to exist. Is this abusing a monopoly? If not, why not?
If Twitter was killing an App or Device made by a 3rd party simply because Twitter was entering that market and wished to monopolize the user-share, then yes I'd consider that anti-competitive. (yes, Twitter does just that, and yes, it's anti-competitive in my book). Simply not being able to mention "Android" or "Android Wear" or now "Pebble Watch" is ridiculous. If I chose to buy an Android Wear or Pebble Watch, it'…
If Twitter was killing an App or Device made by a 3rd party simply because Twitter was entering that market and wished to monopolize the user-share, then yes I'd consider that anti-competitive.
This is exactly what they've done.
Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Apple doesn't want you using their app store in a way that could be promoting their competition. That just seems really messed up. Considering it may not seem so bad since Apple isn't really that diverse but imagine if Google did the same thing at the Play Store. No mention of any other search engines, ad networks, email providers, phones, internet providers, home automation, etc. Pretty sure people would find that…
Imagine if Google did the same thing in search .
> In a lengthy investigation, staffers in the FTC’s bureau of competition found evidence that Google boosted its own services for shopping, travel and local businesses by altering its ranking criteria and “scraping” content from other sites. It also deliberately demoted rivals.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-google-skewed-search-results...
> But at a press conference at the FTC's headquarters, Chairman Jon Leibowitz said that after an "exhaustive" investigation, the commission found there was not enough evidence to conclude Google's search results violate fair-competition laws.
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/275429-google-dodges-fe...
Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have the same stance on Twitter? Twitter has a monopoly on the Twitter platform and may choose not to provide API keys for apps that it doesn't want to exist. Is this abusing a monopoly? If not, why not?
If Twitter was killing an App or Device made by a 3rd party simply because Twitter was entering that market and wished to monopolize the user-share, then yes I'd consider that anti-competitive. (yes, Twitter does just that, and yes, it's anti-competitive in my book). Simply not being able to mention "Android" or "Android Wear" or now "Pebble Watch" is ridiculous. If I chose to buy an Android Wear or Pebble Watch, it'…
If Twitter was killing an App or Device made by a 3rd party simply because Twitter was entering that market and wished to monopolize the user-share, then yes I'd consider that anti-competitive.
This is exactly what they've done.
Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
#166It'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's different than saying "Also on Android" because this is a totally different device. I.e. saying it's on another smartphone doesn't add value to the description
I disagree even with that. If an app runs on other platforms, that means you can use it yourself on other devices you may have lying around, or recommend it to others, which allows you to collaborate in using it socially (actual social features or just discussing how to use it, and so on). Few household and friend groups will be entirely on one platform or another. It also gives you the option of moving to that platform in future. That is useful to many customers. It's obvious that the reason those kind of notices are prevented is to stifle competition.
Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Twitter was killing an App or Device made by a 3rd party simply because Twitter was entering that market and wished to monopolize the user-share, then yes I'd consider that anti-competitive. (yes, Twitter does just that, and yes, it's anti-competitive in my book). Simply not being able to mention "Android" or "Android Wear" or now "Pebble Watch" is ridiculous. If I chose to buy an Android Wear or Pebble Watch, it'…
If Twitter was killing an App or Device made by a 3rd party simply because Twitter was entering that market and wished to monopolize the user-share, then yes I'd consider that anti-competitive. This is exactly what they've done.
> This is exactly what they've done.
I realize that. If you look at the parent, they were making the argument that it's not the same.
Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
#168Earlier 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." Google are currently being taken to the cleaners by the EU for something wholly analogous to this. I can imagine the chaps in Brussels rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of getting their hands on all the dodgy offshore cash that Apple have got piled up in Dublin.
The thing is Apple's share of the phone market in the EU isn't all that great (I gather it's less than 25%). Meanwhile Google has > 80% of the EU search market. You can't exploit a monopoly if you don't have one to begin with.
It's about time the idea of "monopoly" is extended beyond mere market share. With the amount of mobile profits Apple is raking in (70%? 80%?) I'd argue that they have FAR more market power in mobile than all the other players combined.
Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
#169It'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…
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
I disagree about Android. It's helpful to know whether some particular app you're purchasing is going to lock you into one platform or the other. Why should you have to leave the app store to investigate? What's the point of suppressing interoperability? Companies should be rewarded for interop efforts, not punished for it.
Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
>> "...unfairly misuse their position as gatekeepers of the Apple ecosystem..." The point of building the Apple ecosystem was to exploit their position as its gatekeeper. This is the expected result. I would never expect anything else from a walled garden.
Exploiting your position as gatekeeper by selling lots of apps inside that ecosystem is one thing, unfairly misusing that position to imply the support for a rival product in a different market is lacking by rejecting apps in your ecosystem because they mention the rival product so you can take a share of that different market is entirely another rather more illegal thing.