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

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#371

Post by yellowapple » Fri, Apr 24, 2015, 3:01 AM UTC

lnanek2 wrote: post #196

zak_mc_kracken wrote: post #52

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.

Google actually just stated they moved to in person reviews, so expect Android to get just as bad.

Even if it did get "just as bad" on the Play Store (it probably won't, since Google's fully aware that Apple's shooting itself in the foot with its draconian restrictions on apps), you're forgetting that - unlike with iOS (unless you jailbreak, something that's actively fought against by Apple) - most Android devices allow the installation of apps from outside the Play Store.

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#372

Post by yellowapple » Fri, Apr 24, 2015, 3:02 AM UTC

dghughes wrote: post #271

zak_mc_kracken wrote: post #52

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.

Then I'd be happily running an SGI or Sun workstation :)

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#373

Post by lsllc » Fri, Apr 24, 2015, 3:05 AM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #158

lsllc wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Did it? Microsoft didn't get pwned in court over the fact that the OS came with a web browser, they got pwned in court because they were enforcing deals on OEMs that didn't allow them to include another browser. 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…

The EU stuck it to MS over the browser bundling.

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#374

Post by yellowapple » Fri, Apr 24, 2015, 3:09 AM UTC

lttlrck wrote: post #352

bzbarsky wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chrome on iPhone is forced to use Apple's rendering engine, not Google's. In particular, it can't implement any HTML/CSS/JS features that Safari on iPhone doesn't implement. Apple benefits partially in terms of disallowing possibly-unsafe code (JS interpreters, for example) that they themselves did not author. But also from locking out competing browsers so their hardware is harder to commoditize... In terms of stifl…

This is true but doesn't address the question. How is this stifling competition?

To answer your own question, it's stifling competition in the iOS browser space. The above example is precisely why Firefox (for example) is unavailable on iOS; they didn't want to make a technical compromise like using Apple's version of WebKit instead of Gecko or (eventually) Servo.

Basically, the only browsers allowed on iOS are reskins of Safari. Technical competition is stifled that way.

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#375

Post by yellowapple » Fri, Apr 24, 2015, 3:12 AM UTC

toxican wrote: post #240

mikeash wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Given that the issues with Pebble-related apps cropped up when trying to publish app updates, it's possible that Pebble itself just hasn't pushed an update yet, and thus hasn't hit this obstacle yet.

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#376

Post by yellowapple » Fri, Apr 24, 2015, 3:18 AM UTC

AndrewStephens wrote: post #137

karl_gluck wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've said it before and here it is again: Microsoft was in a position of arguably less control in the late 90's and got a huge antitrust case brought against them. Apple is somehow getting away with wildly anticompetitive behavior (more broad than just this case) and for some crazy reason we are all supporting it because "that's the way it is!" When Microsoft was the dominant OS, imagine Windows having a blacklist of…

You should stop saying this. Microsoft didn't get prosecuted for controlling what things end-users could do with Windows. They got punished for using their market share to make it impossible for computer manufacturers to build computers that didn't include software from Microsoft, illegally maintaining their monopoly at the OEMs (and ultimately consumers) expense. Apple has nowhere near the market share that Microsof…

> In the 90's you literally could not.

You actually still could. There were plenty of non-Windows OEMs back then (SGI, Apple, and Sun are examples; all of them built desktops/workstations without Windows installed (instead using IRIX / Mac OS / SunOS/Solaris, respectively)).

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#377

Post by yellowapple » Fri, Apr 24, 2015, 3:22 AM UTC

loumf wrote: post #143

zamalek wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The App Store is Apple's private property. Historically this hasn't been a hurdle for litigation. However, the floral language I used isn't only a result of the App Store - it arises from the many instances of this type of behavior. Take the interaction between iTunes and iDevices as another example. Want to use Winamp to manage your music? Tough. Want to get apps from another store? Tough. Want to browse your phon…

Microsoft had a monopoly on OSs for PCs, so they were not allowed to use that to give another piece of software an advantage. They did not simply have a monopoly on Windows users. In order to be regulated under Anti-trust, Apple would need to have a monopoly on some market that isn't simply described as "their customers". The closest they came was iPod, but it looks like that hovered around 75% http://stratechery.com…

Microsoft didn't actually have a monopoly; they got dinged for trying to create a monopoly by strong-arming OEMS that wanted to sell Windows with their PCs, but there were plenty of non-Windows-centric manufacturers (Apple, Sun, SGI, Be, etc.) and plenty of alternative operating systems, even for IBM-compatibles (one of which is now dominant in pretty much every realm other than desktop/laptop PCs).

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#378

Post by yellowapple » Fri, Apr 24, 2015, 3:29 AM UTC

jackweirdy wrote: post #63

Someone1234 wrote: post #15

This 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.

And surprises me how few SSL-deploying sysadmins use HTTPS Everywhere! (Or perhaps, how few browse their own site...)

That's because quite a few of us shunt the folks trying to access port 80 back onto port 443 (usually by redirecting the request to the https:// equivalent, be it in the load balancer, in the web server, or (in some cases) in the application/site itself).

The world's switching to HTTPS-only setups anyway (particularly when deploying JSON APIs, which are all the rage nowadays). Might as well be ahead of the curve.

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#379

Post by yellowapple » Fri, Apr 24, 2015, 3:31 AM UTC

AlexandrB wrote: post #69

fmsf wrote: post #47

My guess is that in Europe they could get an anti trust lawsuit. Comparing it with internet explorer on windows anti trust lawsuit from EU, Microsoft was forced to acknowledge and provide choice of competitor platforms that where compatible with the system (Firefox, Chrome, Opera,...). Under the same logic, pebble is just an laternative platform compatible with the system (IOS + SeaNav). But either way that is a beha…

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.

> Antitrust requires a monopoly position

No it doesn't. That can attract an antitrust case, but it's not the only means of doing so.

> which Apple doesn't have (but Microsoft did have)

Microsoft didn't actually have a monopoly. They had a very significant market share, but there were still plenty of viable competitors.

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#380

Post by yellowapple » Fri, Apr 24, 2015, 3:36 AM 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…

Should Amazon be allowed to forbid Apple TV sales on Amazon.com now that they have the Fire TV line? Sure, you could shop on Overstock or Newegg or somesuch instead, but would that be convenient after all the energy you might have invested into Amazon (ordering products, perhaps even a Prime membership)?

Amazon.com and the App Store both seek to be places where you can find "everything" (in the context of their respective domains, of course). The difference, however, is that Apple's trying to redefine "everything" to mean "everything that doesn't compete with Apple", whereas Amazon has no problem selling things which compete against itself.