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

391–400 of 414 posts

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#391

Post by epaga »

krschultz wrote: post #307
epaga wrote: post #26

Flagged since this is complete non-news. Apple Watch is now an Apple product so it's now against the rules to mention Pebble in your app store description, a rule which has been around for a LONG time. EDIT: OK, OK. Unflagged since you apparently all really want to talk about this. :)

I interpret the flag to mean "spam" or "offensive", not "This story doesn't interest me". That's why you are getting down votes. If you don't like the story, don't up vote it. Flagging things that are not spam or offensive either wastes mods time or raises the bar on what it takes to flag actually offensive things off the site.

I'd add "incorrect / misleading" to "spam" or "offensive" which is why I originally flagged it. "Doesn't interest me" would simply be expressed by not upvoting.

But anyways - all good.

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#392

Post by toast0 »

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…

If you buy a home from KB Home, must you buy appliances from the KB Home Appliance store? (or risk voiding your warranty)

If you must buy appliances from the KB Home App Store, is it ok to prohibit mentioning that an oven fits great in a Toll Brothers home as well?

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#394

Post by Oletros »

moskie wrote: post #337
Oletros wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pre installing a browser is not an anti competitive practice.

It can be, if the company that does it has a monopoly in the market of operating systems, which would give that company an unfair advantage in the market of browsers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp .

Poor wording for my part, it must say "it is not an anti competitive practice per se"

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#395

Post by gambiter »

yellowapple wrote: post #382
gambiter wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

First of all, Apple isn't PULLING apps now that the Apple Watch is released. The Pebble app is still there, and you can still use it. This whole uproar is about a single developer who had his app denied by a specific reviewer at Apple for a basic breach of their terms and conditions for putting Apps on the App Store. The general consensus seems to be that a simple rewording (maybe not even having to remove the word 'Pebble') is all that he needs.

Also, a theater buying a TV/Radio station and not allowing competing theaters to run ads is perfectly acceptable and realistic.

Overall, I'm failing to see your point. Not to be a broken record, but these are competing businesses. It doesn't really matter if you s/Apple/Amazon|Google/g and s/Pebble/Netflix|Roku/g, all you're really arguing is that a company doesn't have a right to control a marketplace that they OWN.

I get that choice is great for the consumer, and I totally agree. It's absolutely best to have the ability to choose the devices you want, have them interconnect, and to be able to run the software that you want on them. I also think there should be no war or crime, and that the 1%'s money should be spread out evenly over the population. I (shockingly) think that no one should treat ANYONE unfairly. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world.

As long as we allow competition between businesses, they are going to, well, compete. Just because one gets very large and popular doesn't suddenly mean the rules have to change for it.

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#396

Post by kbenson »

yellowapple wrote: post #368
kbenson wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What, now we're supposed to give a pass to people and companies that behave horribly and/or illegally just because they have a better product?

"Better" being debatable, of course.

I agree, I just didn't feel like debating it was worthwhile for the point.

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#397

Post by moskie »

yellowapple wrote: post #367
moskie wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are examples of companies being penalized for antitrust while not being a monopoly (or part of an oligopoly)?

Well, there's Microsoft, which has been penalized on various occasions in the States and the EU despite not actually being a monopoly (there were plenty of other operating system vendors out there, Apple among them). And then you have Google, which has been taking quite a bit of flak from Europe lately.

I'm sorry, could you be more specific? Please link to specific cases that meet the criteria (antitrust cases where the company is found guilty of anti-competitive practices that do NOT involve the company abusing their (mon|olig)opoly power in a certain market). Both those companies are involved in many cases, antitrust or otherwise, and I'm unable to find one that fits the bill. I think you (and digi_owl) are incorrect.

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#398

Post by AndrewStephens »

yellowapple wrote: post #376
AndrewStephens wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)).

You are technically correct (the best kind of correct), but Apple had a very small (and shrinking) market share. Where I lived (NZ) they were almost impossible to find - very few shops even carried them and you paid a large premium. SGI and Sun built specialized, expensive machines for specific professional markets and didn't really compete with Microsoft.

In 1995, if you walked into a shop and said "I need a computer" you were shown a range of machines, all running Windows. It was hard to buy a bare machine without Windows unless you built it yourself. Various PC OEMs made noises about offering other OSes (or even creating their own) but Microsoft shut them down with licensing clauses.

The court cases eventually had the desired effect and now OEMs are free to offer Linux and ChromeOS machines as well as Windows. Took a long time though.

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#399

Post by moskie »

brianpgordon wrote: post #293
moskie wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Can you link to specific examples of companies being found guilty of things like price fixing and wage fixing, where the company was not a monopoly, or part of an oligopoly?

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#400

Post by moskie »

LordKano wrote: post #317
jahewson wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can you link to specific examples of companies being found guilty of those things, where the company was not a monopoly, or part of an oligopoly?
Post reply on HN