Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

forums.getpebble.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 414 posts

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#381

Post by yellowapple »

kedean wrote: post #280
loumf wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ha…

A more relevant comparison would be if Amazon were to forbid Apple TV and Roku and Chromecast sales on Amazon.com because of the existence of the Fire TV.

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#382

Post by yellowapple »

gambiter wrote: post #229
sesteel wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is still anticompetitive, suppressing information about a competitor's product helps the consumer in 0 ways.

You start up movie theater. You sell ads to marketing companies for before the movie. One of those ads is pushing a competing movie theater. Are you really saying you would allow it to run just so that you can 'help the consumer'? Businesses are in competition... that's how the market works.

That's not quite comparable to what Apple's doing.

Here's a better analogy:

Amazon sells set-top boxes. Apple TVs, Rokus, the works. They also sell HDMI sticks, like Chromecasts.

All of a sudden, they come out with a product called the "Fire TV". It integrates with Prime, and in comes in either stick or box form, depending on your preference.

All is well in the world.

But then, all of a sudden, Apple and Netflix and Google find that their Amazon product pages for Apple TV and Roku and Chromecast (respectively) aren't published anymore. When they ask Amazon about it, Amazon stubbornly replies with some rule in their ToS about mentioning competing products.

Is Amazon's behavior in this scenario ethical? Is it worthy of brushing off as "that's how the market works"?

This differs from your analogy by the order of events. In your analogy, your movie theater existed before the attempt to buy an ad for a competitor.

In the case of my analogy (and, indeed, in the case of what Apple's doing now), it would instead be akin to you running a TV station that runs ads for a theater, you opening up a theater of your own, and you then banning the ads of the other theater while running your own ads on the TV station you own.

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#383

Post by yellowapple »

learnstats2 wrote: post #17
icebraining wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iOS is far from having a monopoly in the market (smartphones and tablets). No, monopoly over their devices doesn't count.

Vendor lock-in does count as monopolistic behaviour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in

On top of this, there's such a thing as a "vertical monopoly" (which vendor lock-in facilitates).

The myriad of comments about how Apple "isn't really a monopoly" assume that horizontal monopolies are the only "real" monopolies, but vertical ones are just as dangerous and just as harmful in just as many situations.

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#384

Post by yellowapple »

BringTheTanks wrote: post #318

This 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…

According to other posts in the linked discussion, other apps are being rejected under the same rationale and for the same reasons, and attempts to appeal those rejections aren't going through (Apple's reviewers are continuing to reject new versions of these apps until they remove any/all mention of "Pebble" in their metadata).

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#385

Post by yellowapple »

uberlux wrote: post #311

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.

The effect is ultimately the same. Why bother adding Pebble support if you can't tell users about it?

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#387

Post by yellowapple »

pasta_2 wrote: post #122

It's really amusing that so many of you actually think that Apple is threatened by Pebble in the slightest that they would remove apps that supported it.

It's really amusing that you actually think that Apple isn't threatened.

Pebble is a competitor (and arguably among the most significant, if not the most significant) in a space which Apple seeks to enter. Of course they're threatened. Otherwise, they wouldn't be removing apps solely because they have the word "pebble" in their metadata.

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#388

Post by yellowapple »

ebbv wrote: post #21

There's a lot of cries of monopoly in here, yet the iPhone is routinely outsold by Android phones. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Right back at you. Horizontal monopolies aren't the only kinds of monopolies.

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#389

Post by yellowapple »

ebbv wrote: post #156
jdmichal wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see very few cries of monopoly, and many cries of antitrust. These are not the same thing, at all. This particular instance could be approaching a tying arrangement. It is certainly against the consumer's best interest. Also, under the Sherman act, conspiracy to monopoly is just as illegal as actual monopoly.

I'm probably more progressive than most on HN, and would love to see big conglomerates broken up. But on this issue, I think the accusations of illegal activity are absurd for multiple reasons. 1) Apple does not have anything near total domination in the mobile arena. 2) Apple clearly has a right to control the content in their App Store. Whether that's removing offensive material or just material they don't like. 3)…

> This is not a new provision being brought out to squash Pebble.

Seeing as Apple only started enforcing this against apps advertising Pebble support after coming out with the Apple Watch, yes, this very much is being brought out to squash Pebble.

> Apple clearly has a right to control the content in their App Store. Whether that's removing offensive material or just material they don't like.

So Amazon has the right to forbid the sales of Apple TVs and Rokus on Amazon.com now that they've come out with the Fire TV and friends? I guess it also has the right to forbid the sales of iPads now that it's selling Kindle Fire HDs, or forbid the sales of books that are being made available for B&N's Nook (or some other non-Kindle e-reader).

While we're at it, I guess Microsoft has the right to strong-arm OEMs into selling Windows with their PCs exclusively.

How much farther would you like to take this?

> Apple does not have anything near total domination in the mobile arena.

They have significant influence (if you don't believe me, look at how many "Show HN" posts about mobile apps focus on iOS without even mentioning Android unless somebody asks in the comments, and even then).

Barring this, this would be an attempt to establish vendor lock-in, which is one of several means of effecting a vertical monopoly (and one of the more harmful ways to consumers).

> If you want to go after Apple, go after the way they don't allow consumers to modify the software or install custom software on iOS.

I agree completely. The lack of an ability to sideload apps as a normal user (and no, jailbreaking doesn't count) makes this already-scummy situation that much worse.

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#390

Post by toast0 »

Someone1234 wrote: post #308
kbenson wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because the same IP address also listens on port 443 doesn't mean that delivers the same website, and assuming it does is not a failure on their part, it's a failure of assumptions you or some software you utilize (knowingly or not) has made along the way.

Indeed it doesn't. So why are they returning status code 200? > not a failure on their part, it's a failure of assumptions you or some software you utilize No, it is a failure on their part. They're returning the wrong status code. The software I utilize checks that, they got it wrong. Return 404 instead.

> Indeed it doesn't. So why are they returning status code 200?

Why are you making a request if they don't serve a certificate you accept? You're making the wrong request.

Post reply on HN