Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#231

Post by brlewis » Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 5:00 PM UTC

mapgrep wrote: post #59

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…

The problem appears to be that Apple has reclassified smart watches as a "mobile platform" whereas they did not before. So suddenly having an app so much as mention a smart watch brand is tantamount to mentioning, say, Android. The guidelines state "3.1 - Apps or metadata that mentions [sic] the name of any other mobile platform will be rejected." The poster states the app was approved previously just fine: "SeaNav U…

Currently no Fitbit devices allow you to run apps on them, so "mobile platform" doesn't apply as it does to Pebble.

But regardless of whether it's evenly applied or not, I don't like their policy.

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#232

Post by peter303 » Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 5:00 PM UTC

Apple is evil.

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#233

Post by ddingus » Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 5:02 PM UTC

thomholwerda wrote: post #168

realityking wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, I think share is primary here.

If they had dominant share, and this behavior and massive profit?

Yeah, that's borked up for sure and people are being over exploited.

But they don't have that dominant share, meaning their path is a clear choice, and it's clearly competing with others who operate differently.

The thing is, Apple sells a managed experience. Apple also adds a lot of value, and they ask for that in their pricing, and the managed experience means they can command high margins for the whole solution.

As much as people don't like that, it's a perfectly viable market offering.

That it's not getting dominant share means the other ways of doing things are competing nicely.

As for who makes money and who does not, that's a business problem.

The general purpose market offerings tend to race to the bottom quickly. Margins are thin, share high.

Apple doesn't want to do that, instead offering a different vision, and it's high margins are worth it.

Nobody is trapped with Apple. They have lots of alternatives to choose from.

That means people like Apple, and will pay for the value Apple adds too.

Capitalizing the company like that means they have funded not only the current products, but the development and means for future ones. And Apple makes good products that target some very specific niches.

Other players can and should add value and start asking for it like Apple has for a very long time now.

Heck, they started that with the Apple ][ computer. Given it's overall capability, it was priced pretty high relative to others, but it was also a very high value package. That machine ran from what? late 70's to mid 90's?

Worth it.

Share matters.

Apple has made a business doing niche, high value, high margin products. They get to do that.

They are not a monopoly, and that's why they get to do that.

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#234

Post by miahi » Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 5:02 PM UTC

yoda_sl wrote: post #10

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…

> "On sale today only for $0.99" will get the same rejection... It is ok to put a %

This is because not everybody uses USD as a currency, and also because not everybody understands "$" as USD.

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#235

Post by 31reasons » Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 5:02 PM UTC

Artemis2 wrote: post #175

LordKano wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I feel that Google/Apple should have been hit with an antitrust policy already some time ago.

I am curious why would Google be in trouble with antitrust ?

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#236

Post by macspoofing » Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 5:04 PM UTC

91bananas wrote: post #162

marincounty wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

>I made the switch, I came crawling back to iOS.

My Nexus 4 died and I used iPhone 5 for a month. Couldn't stand it, and bought a Nexus 5. To each his own.

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#237

Post by clarky07 » Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 5:04 PM UTC

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…

Isn't that kind of the point. I had 4 apps with Pebble support (and noted in the description) approved in the last week, along with countless others as mentioned. This is more likely to be the bad/unlucky review than all the others.

While it is another example of a bad review, it's not necessarily an example of a ridiculous new practice by Apple. Maybe it is maybe it isn't, but 1 app is far from proof.

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#238

Post by Aushin » Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 5:05 PM UTC

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…

I don't think this holds up. WalMart choosing not to stock a product doesn't mean that the product won't be made at all. WalMart doesn't decide to stop stocking Hanes underwear because Hanes ships boxers to KMart and Target too.

Now maybe in some cases WalMart does demand exclusive right to sell something. But imagine they did it for EVERY. FUCKING. PRODUCT. I think people would get pretty pissed off. And rightfully so.

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#239

Post by baddox » Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 5:06 PM UTC

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.

I will never understand how "competitive" and "anticompetitive" came to be used interchangeably.

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#240

Post by toxican » Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 5:08 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #225

toxican wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does belong because the claim is that Apple is actively denying apps that support Pebble (which is not true). If Apple were doing that, they'd have taken down the official Pebble app entirely. You're muddying the entire discussion bringing in the consistency of Apple's enforcement of rules or how fair the rules are. None of that matters in this discussion. What matters is that some dev made a wild claim that Apple…

The whole point of my post is that if Apple were actively denying apps that support Pebble they would not necessarily have taken down the official Pebble app, because that sort of inconsistency is exactly how they operate. They can and do say "All apps that do X are forbidden" while not taking down some apps that clearly do X.

But when an app is the official embodiment of X, you'd really expect that to go first. If Apple were actively trying to get rid of Pebble-friendly apps, I would think the main/official Pebble app would be first to go.

None of this really matters though because the title/claim are still bogus.