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

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#351

Post by jsz0 » Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 8:47 PM UTC

thomholwerda wrote: post #168

realityking wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is Apple's share of the phone market in the EU isn't all that great (I gather it's less than 25%). Meanwhile Google has > 80% of the EU search market. You can't exploit a monopoly if you don't have one to begin with.

It's about time the idea of "monopoly" is extended beyond mere market share. With the amount of mobile profits Apple is raking in (70%? 80%?) I'd argue that they have FAR more market power in mobile than all the other players combined.

Market share matters because when a viable competitor exists in the market it provides a check/balance.

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#352

Post by lttlrck » Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 8:48 PM UTC

bzbarsky wrote: post #292

blumkvist wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does this benefit them? I'm genuinely interested. I'm not a developer and don't know what that means. It sounds bad, but how does it stifle competition? Is Safari gaining an advantage? I used Chrome on my iphone4 and was pretty happy with it.

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?

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#353

Post by blumkvist » Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 8:51 PM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #288

blumkvist wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's about market share and global impact. It might sound like double standard to you, but denying your awesome new airbnb for dogs app is not quite the same as denying Java.

You are mistaking monopoly for anti-competitive behavior. It's possible to exhibit anti-competitive behavior without being a monopoly.

Uuuh, yeah... ompanies are competing for the same clients, of course they would exhibit anti-competitive behavior. This is problem only if said company has market dominance, because then the anti-competitive measures affect all the market.

Guys, do you dream of unicorns and fart rainbows all day? WTF?

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#354

Post by zak_mc_kracken » Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 9:05 PM UTC

atomicfiredoll wrote: post #216

blumkvist wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's about market share and global impact. It might sound like double standard to you, but denying your awesome new airbnb for dogs app is not quite the same as denying Java.

> It's about market share and global impact There's not some kind of, "the impact has to be as large as when company X did it" rule. Apple now has enough market share, especially in mobile, that the global impact is troubling.

> Apple now has enough market share, especially in mobile

Not really. Depending on the country, the iPhone has between 10 and 20% market share and they are shrinking month after month. Android is on its way to becoming a monopoly, for sure.

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#355

Post by jsz0 » Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 9:12 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #90

toxican wrote: post #2

I think I want to see more information before I grab my pitchfork. From the replies, > are you sure you're a developer? because this has been part of iOS submission guidelines for 4 years. (developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#metadata) I mean I really wouldn't put it past Apple to start enforcing this more aggressively because of the iWatch, but a forum post by some dev is hardly proof that Apple is inte…

"By that logic" doesn't belong anywhere near a discussion of Apple review guidelines or behavior. The only thing they are consistent about when reviewing iOS apps is being completely inconsistent. You cannot point to the acceptance of one app as evidence that some rule isn't being applied to another app. Apple constantly rejects apps for claimed rule violations while allowing other apps through with identical violati…

> By that logic" doesn't belong anywhere near a discussion of Apple review guidelines or behavior.

Just like every other rule/law in the world.

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#356

Post by tapoxi » Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 9:14 PM UTC

tdkl wrote: post #315

tapoxi wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

According to Apple, this data is gathered when location services is on, see "Crowd-sourced Wi-Fi and cellular Location Services"

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203033

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#357

Post by reallyRaoul » Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 9:50 PM UTC

logfromblammo wrote: post #333

baddox wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will never understand how "competitive" and "anticompetitive" came to be used interchangeably.

Cutting your prices is competitive. Cutting your competitor's throat is anti-competitive.

dumping

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#358

Post by pbreit » Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 9:59 PM UTC

morganvachon wrote: post #274

s73v3r wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My guess is this article is either false or Apple re-examines to allow "watch" mentions on iOS app store pages.

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#359

Post by blumkvist » Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 10:00 PM UTC

zak_mc_kracken wrote: post #354

atomicfiredoll wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's about market share and global impact There's not some kind of, "the impact has to be as large as when company X did it" rule. Apple now has enough market share, especially in mobile, that the global impact is troubling.

> Apple now has enough market share, especially in mobile Not really. Depending on the country, the iPhone has between 10 and 20% market share and they are shrinking month after month. Android is on its way to becoming a monopoly, for sure.

Where do you get your data?

https://gigaom2.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/screen-shot-2015...

-Kantar

Re: Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

#360

Post by X-Cubed » Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 11:02 PM UTC

Someone1234 wrote: post #295

JohnTHaller wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> This is the whole reason the site itself doesn't direct you to https or advertise it is available. They are advertising it. They have a web-server running on 443 open to the public, they aren't required to, but they choose to. They're also erroneously returning status code 200 (instead of 404 or 301). > So, if you use an extension that randomly directs you to connect using a method the site operator never told you…

There is no reason that HTTP and HTTPS ports have to serve the same website. In this case, the HTTPS port is serving pebble.vanillaforums.com (or whatever) while the HTTP port is serving forums.getpebble.com.

The HTTPS port could just as easily be serving up an admin page for the forums, rather than the forums themselves.