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.
Imagine a world where IBM compatible computers didn't exist.
Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
271–280 of 414 posts
Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then the "bad" reviewer would have been the one the approved the RunKeeper app since the guideslines specifically state that "Apps or metadata that mentions the name of any other mobile platform will be rejected"[1]. Edit: I do not endorse the app store guidelines. [1] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#met...
Except Pebble isn't another mobile platform. It is an accessory.
Pebble has apps: http://www.wareable.com/apps/the-best-apps-for-pebble-and-pe...
And Pebble works even when you don't have your phone with you, so it's more of a mobile platform than Apple Watch.
Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
#273This doesn't surprise me. Our app relies on the Yubikey devices for 2-factor auth and since the iPad 4 Apple have deliberately blocked non-Apple devices working with the Camera Connection Kit, meaning that our customers cannot use our product with anything after the iPad 3.
This obviously meant we had to drop support for Apple products and even for a small product like ours this has lost Apple hundreds of device sales from customers of ours purchasing other devices because of this.
While Apple won't give a crap about those few sales, at some stage, their provincialism will come back to bite them.
Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nah. The pebble complements an iPhone whereas android replaces.
The Pebble replaces an Apple Watch, however.
Exactly. And while I do think this is a shitty thing of Apple to do, I can't help but feel some Schadenfreude as well, given Pebble's treatment of Microsoft[1]. I'm also wondering if this kind of thing will happen to app developers who support other watch/band manufacturers on multiple platforms? There are a lot of fitness bands out there with multi-platform support.
[1]Microsoft took on the bulk of the financial and research hurdles in bringing Pebble support to Windows Phone, but the Pebble CEO said more or less "fuck you, I hate Microsoft because reasons" and shuttered the deal: http://www.windowscentral.com/pebble-microsoft-and-what-coul...
Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
#275Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know what rules you're talking about here. The OP says that Apple has worse practices than MSFT. I say that's not true. Denying computing technology on which business, governments, factories, powerplants, etc. run is FAR worse than denying (objectively) useless apps. When has Apple hindered a break-through technology? PS: I'm a massive fan of Microsoft marketing and strategy and have owned a grand total of 1…
> When has Apple hindered a break-through technology? Contemporary example: it's impossible (as in, disallowed by Apple's policies) to install a web browser with a rendering engine written in a memory-safe language on your iDevice.
I'm not super concerned about that. In particular, no such browser exists, so it's largely a semantic argument.
Furthermore, there are inherent security risks; so it's easier to just lock it down until there is actually a problem.
The bigger problem is that you can't implement a JIT on iOS, because you can't take a writeable page and make it executable. This is a clear security positive for iOS, but does preclude writing a decent javascript runtime.
Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
But Apple doesn't have anywhere near a monopoly on smart phones, so being anti-competitive is completely legal
What? Doing an anti competitive practice is legal if you don't have a monopoly?
That is my understanding.
For example, Microsoft got in trouble for pre-installing IE on Windows because they had monopoly in the OS market. If they didn't have that monopoly, they would not have been penalized.
Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple does have their own smart watch, though, and seems to be using their influence over the iPhone market to pressure the auxiliary device market. I'm not a lawyer, but isn't that roughly compatible to the Microsoft/Netscape situation?
It's compatible with what they did in the eBook market which drove up prices for eBooks and killed off some eBook businesses.
Which businesses were these? I thought the plaintiff was Amazon.
Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
#278I'm getting an SSL certificate error - the site is presenting a cert for *.vanillaforums.com.
Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
#279Earlier 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.
It's also ultimately shitty for consumers, which will drive people away from Apple's products. Microsoft pulled this shit for years with MS Office, and it opened the door for Google. This behavior may get them in trouble with the FTC, but it's also not likely to be very popular in the market. I get if they want a "premium" experience with the Apple Watch, but they shouldn't block other devices. The Apple Watch should…
That assumes an informed consumer, and what we are discussing is actually Apple's attempt to restrict consumer information.
Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Can Amazon decide what you can buy on Amazon.com? Can Netflix decide what movies you see in their app? (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)
This isn't about deciding whats in their store, its the justification given. In the US, an at-will employee can be fired for any reason, excluding special cases like sexism, racism, or homophobia in some states. A store can decide to not stock a product for any reason, except for a set of special cases. I think that 'because you are also friendly with a competitor' is one of those special cases. I would definitely have a problem if amazon refused to stock books that are also on B&N, or if Netflix refused to provide a movie only because its also on HBO right now (note that this obviously doesn't apply if there were exclusivity agreements made with the consent of the content maker).