Misleading headline; Apple is only rejecting apps that explicitly mention Pebble in their app description and metadata. Nothing to do with the actual functionality. App developers can get their app linked to from any website that lists apps with Pebble compatibility.
Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
311–320 of 414 posts
Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
#312Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find that it depends on the person - I loathe Apple's restrictiveness in general, including the sometimes poor UX (no back button on the phone is extremely annoying and I have to make extra taps in out of the way places instead of quickly hitting back, as one example, or the mindboggling restrictiveness to manually created 30 second snippets for ringtones instead of allowing me to just use my mp3s, or the horrific…
> including the sometimes poor UX (no back button on the phone is extremely annoying and I have to make extra taps in out of the way places instead of quickly hitting back You never tried the swipe from the edge for back ?
Not all apps do that, so it's not reliable.
Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
#313Earlier 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…
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…
How does Apple demand the exclusive right to sell anything? There are plenty of Android apps that integrate with Pebble, and plenty of apps that are available across iOS, Android, even Windows, Blackberry, FireFox OS, Cyanogen, etc.
Apple can set rules for apps in their app store, just like Walmart can control the stock on their shelves. Walmart doesn't carry what you want? Go to Target. Apple doesn't allow an app you want? Go to Android.
Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
#314Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Google does prevent you from using other trademarks in your Play Store copy Can you point where it is stated or the related point in the policy? Thanks
Look for any story where someone said they had their app taken down because they had copyrighted material in the promo pictures or used a trademarked name in the title or copy. https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
Those stories and policies is for using copyrighted material without permission or using trademarks without authorisation, totally different thing from not able to use trademarked names.
Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
#315Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't like that approach of forcing everything into the Apple ecosystem. I got tired of that 2 years ago and switched to android So you rather switched to a system where there's a Google Services component that sends your location every 60 seconds (unless device is set to "GPS only") and gets updated without your control ? That's bold.
Apple devices also record your location history and send it to Apple. It's to build a wifi location database.
There's an option for opting out, without hindering the geolocation.
Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
#316Earlier 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.
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 m…
IMHO the trade-off for creating anti-consumer walled gardens should be that you define the market in which you are subject for anti-trust cases.
If you have set yourself up as the sole gatekeeper for selling apps in your walled garden, you accept legal responsibility in that role to maintain a level playing field. If you don't like it, don't put up the walls and compete at being the best flower in open parkland.
Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
#317Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having a monopoly might put you under the microscope, but you certainly can't get away with anticompetitive practices like price fixing or wage fixing even if you don't have a monopoly.
Yes but those are just about the only things which you can't get away with. The US has very weak consumer protection laws in general.
Collusion.
Retail price maintenance.
Dividing territories.
Exclusive dealing.
These are all anti-competitive behavior that will get one smacked by Federal regulators without being a monopoly.
Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
#318This is not a change in Apple's policies, it's a fluke. The reviewer is interpreting the rule incorrectly.
The rule is intended to avoid descriptions which refer to future plans for alternative platform support, or different ports of the app available on other platforms. The rule does not intend to withhold information on platform support for this app instance, or ban said platform support.
For example:
- "Also find our app on the Pebble Watch Store" (violation)
- "This app syncs with Pebble Smartwatch" (not violation)
Other examples:
- "This feature is only available on our Windows Phone version of Office" (violation)
- "We're moving to the Google Play store for Android" (violation)
- "This app allows you to share files on all popular mobile platforms" (not violation)
- "Tap together your iPhone to another iPhone, Android phone or WM phone to share contact info" (not violation)
My guess is Apple will be reversing decision on that rejection soon.
Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
#319Earlier 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…
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…
I think its entirely possible for a product to depend single handedly on WalMart for distribution in order to get economics of scale benefits to even be profitable in the first place.
Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
#320This forum appears to have an invalid certificate: Domain: forums.getpebble.com CN = *.vanillaforums.com If you use HTTPS Everywhere, you'll want to uncheck this specific site, remove the HTTPS part of the URL and reload. PS - I love HTTPS Everywhere but it always surprises me just how many sites have broken HTTPS implementations.
This is the whole reason the site itself doesn't direct you to https or advertise it is available. In order to support https, you don't just install a cert, you know. You have to make sure your whole chain supports it. Including things like third party CDN providers, which can be more expensive to enable https than you pay for the CDN. So, if you use an extension that randomly directs you to connect using a method th…
The site operator never told me to use plain http either. I just "randomly" ended up there by clicking on a link on HN that has no relation at all with the site.
If you expect http->https redirection to be the only valid path to a https site, then a MITM attacker would obviously disable that redirection because it's still done on the unsecure channel. This is the whole reason extensions like https everywhere exists.