71–80 of 414 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple has no monopoly in any market. Their platform terms and conditions may (or may not) be draconian, but what antitrust concerns can be taken seriously? Apple owns a small (but profitable) share of every market in which they operate.
They have a total monopoly on the software market for iDevices. Even if the way they got that monopoly wasn't abusive, they are abusing it now.
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…
The problem appears to be that Apple has reclassified smart watches as a "mobile platform" whereas they did not before. So suddenly having an app so much as mention a smart watch brand is tantamount to mentioning, say, Android. The guidelines state "3.1 - Apps or metadata that mentions [sic] the name of any other mobile platform will be rejected." The poster states the app was approved previously just fine: "SeaNav U…
Many of them seem to be there as justification to choose from if they see something they don't like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The truth is that it goes far beyond the unfairness to this specific developer and far beyond whether the developer neglected to check the TOS 4 years ago. Apple is a vile anti-competitive monstrosity. These jerks needed to be slammed with a lawsuit long before this one single example of their flamboyant and abundant anti-competitive behavior.
This has nothing to do with the (blatantly) false title or claim though. Apple is not trying to remove Pebble-supporting apps. The dev of a single Pebble-supporting app violated the rules and their app as rejected accordingly. Whether or not the rules are fair is irrelevant, imo.
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 applications you can't install because they advertised compatibility with Linux or Mac apps. People would riot. But we accept exactly the same behavior from Apple like it's totally fine.
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.
They didn't say the support had to be removed just the mentioning of the other platform.
> Specifically, -> your app
Makes sense. Apple doesn't want you using their app store in a way that could be promoting their competition. For example, maybe I'm browsing the app store for new apps and I come across this app in question. Reading the description I see it says something about the Pebble watch...hmmm..I've never heard of this. Now I look it up, it looks cool, I like it, now I want to buy the Pebble instead of the Apple watch. Their…
> Apple doesn't want you using their app store in a way that could be promoting their competition. That just seems really messed up. Considering it may not seem so bad since Apple isn't really that diverse but imagine if Google did the same thing at the Play Store. No mention of any other search engines, ad networks, email providers, phones, internet providers, home automation, etc. Pretty sure people would find that…
That being said, in the Pebble case, I think it makes the user experience worst for the user. I.e. if I have a pebble watch and am looking for an iphone app that play well with it, I'd want to see the name in the description/meta-data.
I think it's different than saying "Also on Android" because this is a totally different device. I.e. saying it's on another smartphone doesn't add value to the description, but saying it supports some hardware device does.
It seems like Apple is doing that as a way to kill competition and promote their own watch, which is fair from a business standpoint. But as a user, 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, haven't looked back since.
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…
The title is misleading at best. Apple does not care what support you have. They just don't want you to advertise that in their app store.
Yep. Same if you mention in your app that it's also available on Android. Fascist? Yes. Surprising? No. New? Certainly not.
From a consumer perspective, I can see Apple's argument that mentioning Android support doesn't matter because the app running on Android has no bearing on whether it works on your iOS device or not.
But for something like a wearable, that's absolutely information I want as a consumer. To me, it's much closer to an app being able to say whether they support BTLE heart rate monitors or not. It's something that interfaces directly with the device.
I suspect the actual reason Apple is suddenly expanding what it considers a mobile platform is that it's a preemptive strike against Android Wear support for iOS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The truth is that it goes far beyond the unfairness to this specific developer and far beyond whether the developer neglected to check the TOS 4 years ago. Apple is a vile anti-competitive monstrosity. These jerks needed to be slammed with a lawsuit long before this one single example of their flamboyant and abundant anti-competitive behavior.
> Apple is a vile antitrust monstrosity. These jerks needed to be slammed with a lawsuit long before this one single example of their flamboyant and abundant anti-competitive behavior. While Apple are being increasingly huge dicks with their ecosystem I think you'd be hard-pressed with an antitrust case because Apple does not have a monopoly (or even a majority marketshare) on mobile devices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ask the EU - and compare that hilarious case to the apple store problem we have here.... http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-4781_en.htm
The difference is that Google has a near monopoly on search whereas Apple has no such monopoly on mobile platforms.