5 ms·

Apple bans Android magazine app

97 points by rooshdi 16y ago

Qz 16y ago
Wait, there are Steve Jobs action figures?
- sathyabhat 16y ago
  Not any more. http://micgadget.com/9716/the-end-of-apple-ceo-action-figure/ http://micgadget.com/9716/the-end-of-apple-ceo-action-figure...
semanticist 16y ago
He says that the question is 'where is this going?' - I think that's been pretty clear now for years. The Apple App Store exists to provide additional value to owning an iPhone, which in turn directly makes Apple money, which is what Apple's in business to do. Google don't care what you promote in their app store because they're not making money selling devices. Android only matters to them as a means of increasing take-up of the mobile web, and as a way of displaying more adverts. You can promote the iPhone in an Android app because Google don't lose out if you switch - they're displaying adverts on websites regardless of the mobile operating system. Apple, on the other hand, do lose out and so don't want you to hear about the latest Android phones. I can see the philosophical arguments against Apple's position and for openness, but I have a hard time seeing any business arguments against Apple's position. And ultimately, if Apple's control of their platform offends you then you should protest in the most effective way possible: by not buying their device in the first place.
- rooshdi 16y ago
  Google has as much of an incentive to control the mobile OS experience as Apple. Both realize that controlling the mobile OS experience will enable them to present more of their mobile services to users, thus increasing revenue over time. Banning an app solely based on the fact that it features a competitor's product is an anti-competitive measure which should be denounced and discouraged.
  - semanticist 16y ago
    I don't think Google have any incentive to control the mobile OS experience, and they largely don't and are incapable of doing it anyway. It doesn't matter if people are going to Google's ad-supported services via Android, iOS, Symbian, or Blackberry (or others) - and as long as at least some of these platforms have a focus on the end user experience it creates attention for mobile services which Google will benefit from. People will see things like Google Maps on an iPhone and try it on their own phone, even if they're not using an iOS device. And even if Google wanted to control the user experience in the same way as Apple, they simply can't: Android's open nature means that the networks and device manufacturers are free to screw around with it in any way they please, up to and including pushing their own partner's online products over Google's. Mobile phone networks have a very long tradition of cutting off their nose to spite their face, and Android's openness unfortunately can give them a bigger knife.
    - rooshdi 16y ago
      Google has as much ability to dictate their App marketplace as Apple. They've strayed away from such practices because they realize the dictation of applications begins to devolve into a very bigotry-riddled process which ultimately hinders development and innovation. Google could suffer greatly if one day Apple decides to ban or suppress their apps within the App Store due to competitive reasons.
      - semanticist 16y ago
        Android devices don't even have to include the Google app marketplace. A manufacturer or network can put their own marketplace on the device instead, which makes it pretty much like every pre-iOS smartphone platform (at least in that regard). I don't think that any single manufacturer has the leverage to tell the networks to stay out of the device OS and just be dumb bit transporters. I suppose Nokia could do it, but the idea's pretty unthinkable for those guys.
- btmorex 16y ago
  The business argument would have been "you can't maintain majority market share with such tight fisted control of the app store, approval process, choice of carrier, etc". But that was really an argument that applied 1+ years ago before iphone lost momentum to android. At this point, I don't think there's a way for the iphone to win against android.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    The business argument would have been "you can't maintain majority market share with such tight fisted control of the app store, approval process, choice of carrier, etc". Choice of carrier is a serious issue. The other things? Not so much. The vast majority of iPhone users neither know nor care about the App Store approval process, and there's a more-than-sufficient number of happy developers out there to keep the App Store humming indefinitely.
    - semanticist 16y ago
      Plenty of choice of carrier in the UK and other places. The carrier restrictions seem to largely be a North American problem.
      - hugh3 16y ago
        True. But North America is a very big market, so it's still a big problem for them.
        spot 16y ago
        So how do the numbers fall in the UK? What is the market share of Android vs iPhone where they have equal availability?
  - semanticist 16y ago
    Talk of 'winning' or 'losing' is foolish - this isn't a game with pre-set victory conditions. Apple, a single device manufacturer, will inevitably not sell as many units as the combined Android device manufacturers. It's like comparing the output of Smart to the output of Ford. Apple don't need - and never had, anyway - a majority market share in order to turn a significant profit on selling devices. (And they are turning a significant profit - a quick Google shows Apple were reporting quarterly profits up 70% a couple of months ago.)
angrycoder 16y ago
I know hating on the apple is all the rage these days, but that is like walking into the Coke company store and bitching because they won't let you sell Pepsi tee shirts there.
- rooshdi 16y ago
  I think Google censoring search results because they linked to competitors such as Bing and DuckDuckGo would be a closer analogy. The dictation of applications based on the information they contain is the underlying issue here.
- bryanlarsen 16y ago
  That metaphor would make sense only if the only place you could by Coke was at the Coke company store. I'm fairly sure there are lots of places that sell both Pepsi tee shirts as well as Coke products. Let us side load apps, and we'll stop bitching about Apple store practices.
  - Groxx 16y ago
    There are lots of places that only sell one, too. Restaurants frequently sell only one or the other, in large part due to anticompetitive agreements when making the sales contracts. A quick Google brings up: http://www.wright.edu/~tdung/coke-italy.htm http://www.wright.edu/~tdung/coke-italy.htm
  - Xuzz 16y ago
    http://cydia.saurik.com/ http://cydia.saurik.com/
    - jawee 16y ago
      I think the point is something Apple-sanctioned. Most people want to be able to put apps on their phone without violating terms of service agreements..
      - Groxx 16y ago
Groxx 16y ago
Oh come on, like that's a surprise: 3. Metadata (name, descriptions, ratings, rankings, etc) 3.1 Apps with metadata that mentions the name of any other mobile platform will be rejected This deserves a "duh". Honestly, what were they expecting? This strikes me as flamebait-generation and little else.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- te_chris 16y ago
  Maybe, but they still raise a vaild point. If i want to read about windows 7 on my mac apple can't stop but i'm also not just going to sell the mac because I read an article. This is a pretty epic display of insecurity on Apple's part.
  - Groxx 16y ago
    Insecurity: different issue entirely, though I generally agree. Mobile platforms are an extremely active battleground right now, though. Not sure what the valid point would be. "Where this is going"? It's not going anywhere. A similar rule exists in the Mac App Store guidelines... both of which merely mean you can't cite other OSes in the app store. The app can internally / on their site advertise that they're also on Windows, just not in the store. It's not a very surprising requirement, as it's a locked-to-a-single-OS store, and it's easy to get around if your app has any purpose aside from advertising the competition. Putting the magazine as an app on the store would be nigh-impossible, because you couldn't mention its primary purpose, but it'd likely get by with no issue if such a thing were achieved without being misleading.
    - confuzatron 16y ago
      Mobile platforms are an extremely active battleground right now, though. The mind boggles that we're in a situation where arguments like this are put forward. No offence to you specifically Groxx, but... I feel like Apple has exiled us all to crazy land.
thought_alarm 16y ago
The iTunes App Store is a very valuable and powerful marketing, publishing, sales, and distribution resource. It was created by Apple to attract 3rd party developers to the iPhone, with the ultimate goal of selling more devices to more users. They succeeded wildly. Apple would not and cannot prevent you from reading an Android magazine on your iPhone, but they are under no obligation to publish, market, distribute, and sell anyone's content, especially one dedicated solely to a competing product. If someone wants to sell an Android magazine to iPhone users they're going to have to publish, market, and distribute it themselves, over the web, just like they would have to if the App Store didn't exist. Why would anyone expect to use Apple's marketing resources to advertise a competing product? Well, they wouldn't. But it does make for a nice publicity stunt, apparently. Placement in the App Store isn't a right, it's a privilege, just like any other store.
- tewks 16y ago
  Your argument would be completely correct if the App Store were not the sole means of distribution of native software to iOS devices. Because the App Store is the sole means of said distribution, the validity of your argument becomes much murkier. In my opinion, Apple should enhance the permissions system and allow the installation of software from other sources. The App Store would still reign supreme, generate revenue, et cetera and users would largely continue to be protected from malicious software. This sort of discussion would be moot as a result and your argument would stand.
  - Groxx 16y ago
    Because it's the sole means of distribution, but they're not significantly the biggest / only fish in the pond, it falls solidly in allowable-anti-competitive-behavior land. Anti-competitive, certainly, but there are plenty of other phones out there. If you want an iPhone, you want an iPhone and everything that goes with it, and this is one of those things. Opening it up would be nice, I doubt anyone would disagree with that, but it's fully within their interest, ability, and right to restrict it. Maybe not best interest, but it's their decision to make.
  - thought_alarm 16y ago
siglesias 16y ago
I think there's something rather juvenile about pointing out that every well-meaning rule or law based system has its hazy areas, gray zones, and ambiguities. The developer here is ostensibly exercising deliberate provocation. I'd much rather wait until a well-meaning, well-intended app, one that is attempting to be useful to a regular person, is rejected for unreasonable reasons and get outraged about that. This meanwhile is clearly a bid for attention. Somebody who is deliberately provoking Apple for reasons "uphill" from more insidious reasons is wasting our time. In my opinion most slippery slope arguments are just bad arguments used to make something look much worse than it is.
- rooshdi 16y ago
  How do you know this was his clear intention? Everyone is going to have a different opinion on what a "well-meaning, well-intended app" is and restricting certain apps based on what one considers "well-meaning" is a very myopic and inconsiderate view to have.
  - siglesias 16y ago
    This argument doesn't fly because you are making "well-meaning" out to be more ambiguous and subject to disagreement than it actually is. All of us exercise judgment every day about well-meaningness when we excuse people for bumping into us, saying something they didn't intend, misunderstanding an unfamiliar rule or custom. It's what we do without thinking twice. You though, like many, many, others, are getting caught up in the subjective nature of exercising judgment and would like to see a list of necessary and sufficient conditions that is followed logically and to a t, something like a mathematics that has right and wrong and no in between. Unfortunately these things don't exist. If you look at how government and academia played out we have a judiciary systems and admissions systems that, yeah, have a few well-meaning people exercising judgment about slew of important topics that affect lots of people. It's either that or anarchy. There is subjectivity about a lot if concepts, laws, and institutions we don't have a choice but to share. The presence of subjectivity is not grounds for eliminating that institution.
    - 16y ago
billmcneale 16y ago
This gives us a good idea of what an Apple monopoly would look like. Suddenly, Microsoft's monopoly doesn't look that evil, does it? Thanks Google and thanks Android for giving us an alternative.
siculars 16y ago
What kind of restrictions will the app store for the next os x release, lion, have? Yes, I realize it is in the ToS as Groxx pointed out but come on. This is just getting ridiculous.
confuzatron 16y ago
Well, think about it this way: would you want your children reading a publication about Android? Because hey - if you're cool with that, go ahead and get them an Android phone.
Joeri 16y ago
There's no slippery slope here. From day one apple has been crystal clear that this was _their_ platform, and that everyone on it had to play by their rules. When you buy an iOS device, it's not your device, it remains their device. Can't deal with that? Don't buy it! Now, apple _is_ going somewhere with OS X. They're starting to lock it down. Lion will still be open enough from what I gather, but they're gradually changing the rules of what tweaking you'll be able to do with your mac. I don't like that, so I see a possibility of a return to linux for me.
- Anechoic 16y ago
  but they're gradually changing the rules of what tweaking you'll be able to do with your mac How exactly?

97 points by rooshdi 16y ago

Qz 16y ago

Wait, there are Steve Jobs action figures?

sathyabhat 16y ago
Not any more. http://micgadget.com/9716/the-end-of-apple-ceo-action-figure/ http://micgadget.com/9716/the-end-of-apple-ceo-action-figure...

semanticist 16y ago

He says that the question is 'where is this going?' - I think that's been pretty clear now for years. The Apple App Store exists to provide additional value to owning an iPhone, which in turn directly makes Apple money, which is what Apple's in business to do. Google don't care what you promote in their app store because they're not making money selling devices. Android only matters to them as a means of increasing take-up of the mobile web, and as a way of displaying more adverts. You can promote the iPhone in an Android app because Google don't lose out if you switch - they're displaying adverts on websites regardless of the mobile operating system. Apple, on the other hand, do lose out and so don't want you to hear about the latest Android phones. I can see the philosophical arguments against Apple's position and for openness, but I have a hard time seeing any business arguments against Apple's position. And ultimately, if Apple's control of their platform offends you then you should protest in the most effective way possible: by not buying their device in the first place.

rooshdi 16y ago
Google has as much of an incentive to control the mobile OS experience as Apple. Both realize that controlling the mobile OS experience will enable them to present more of their mobile services to users, thus increasing revenue over time. Banning an app solely based on the fact that it features a competitor's product is an anti-competitive measure which should be denounced and discouraged.
- semanticist 16y ago
  I don't think Google have any incentive to control the mobile OS experience, and they largely don't and are incapable of doing it anyway. It doesn't matter if people are going to Google's ad-supported services via Android, iOS, Symbian, or Blackberry (or others) - and as long as at least some of these platforms have a focus on the end user experience it creates attention for mobile services which Google will benefit from. People will see things like Google Maps on an iPhone and try it on their own phone, even if they're not using an iOS device. And even if Google wanted to control the user experience in the same way as Apple, they simply can't: Android's open nature means that the networks and device manufacturers are free to screw around with it in any way they please, up to and including pushing their own partner's online products over Google's. Mobile phone networks have a very long tradition of cutting off their nose to spite their face, and Android's openness unfortunately can give them a bigger knife.
  - rooshdi 16y ago
    Google has as much ability to dictate their App marketplace as Apple. They've strayed away from such practices because they realize the dictation of applications begins to devolve into a very bigotry-riddled process which ultimately hinders development and innovation. Google could suffer greatly if one day Apple decides to ban or suppress their apps within the App Store due to competitive reasons.
    - semanticist 16y ago
      Android devices don't even have to include the Google app marketplace. A manufacturer or network can put their own marketplace on the device instead, which makes it pretty much like every pre-iOS smartphone platform (at least in that regard). I don't think that any single manufacturer has the leverage to tell the networks to stay out of the device OS and just be dumb bit transporters. I suppose Nokia could do it, but the idea's pretty unthinkable for those guys.
btmorex 16y ago
The business argument would have been "you can't maintain majority market share with such tight fisted control of the app store, approval process, choice of carrier, etc". But that was really an argument that applied 1+ years ago before iphone lost momentum to android. At this point, I don't think there's a way for the iphone to win against android.
- hugh3 16y ago
  The business argument would have been "you can't maintain majority market share with such tight fisted control of the app store, approval process, choice of carrier, etc". Choice of carrier is a serious issue. The other things? Not so much. The vast majority of iPhone users neither know nor care about the App Store approval process, and there's a more-than-sufficient number of happy developers out there to keep the App Store humming indefinitely.
  - semanticist 16y ago
    Plenty of choice of carrier in the UK and other places. The carrier restrictions seem to largely be a North American problem.
    - hugh3 16y ago
      True. But North America is a very big market, so it's still a big problem for them.
      - spot 16y ago
        So how do the numbers fall in the UK? What is the market share of Android vs iPhone where they have equal availability?
- semanticist 16y ago
  Talk of 'winning' or 'losing' is foolish - this isn't a game with pre-set victory conditions. Apple, a single device manufacturer, will inevitably not sell as many units as the combined Android device manufacturers. It's like comparing the output of Smart to the output of Ford. Apple don't need - and never had, anyway - a majority market share in order to turn a significant profit on selling devices. (And they are turning a significant profit - a quick Google shows Apple were reporting quarterly profits up 70% a couple of months ago.)

angrycoder 16y ago

I know hating on the apple is all the rage these days, but that is like walking into the Coke company store and bitching because they won't let you sell Pepsi tee shirts there.

rooshdi 16y ago
I think Google censoring search results because they linked to competitors such as Bing and DuckDuckGo would be a closer analogy. The dictation of applications based on the information they contain is the underlying issue here.
bryanlarsen 16y ago
That metaphor would make sense only if the only place you could by Coke was at the Coke company store. I'm fairly sure there are lots of places that sell both Pepsi tee shirts as well as Coke products. Let us side load apps, and we'll stop bitching about Apple store practices.
- Groxx 16y ago
  There are lots of places that only sell one, too. Restaurants frequently sell only one or the other, in large part due to anticompetitive agreements when making the sales contracts. A quick Google brings up: http://www.wright.edu/~tdung/coke-italy.htm http://www.wright.edu/~tdung/coke-italy.htm
- Xuzz 16y ago
  http://cydia.saurik.com/ http://cydia.saurik.com/
  - jawee 16y ago
    I think the point is something Apple-sanctioned. Most people want to be able to put apps on their phone without violating terms of service agreements..
    - Groxx 16y ago

Groxx 16y ago

Oh come on, like that's a surprise: 3. Metadata (name, descriptions, ratings, rankings, etc) 3.1 Apps with metadata that mentions the name of any other mobile platform will be rejected This deserves a "duh". Honestly, what were they expecting? This strikes me as flamebait-generation and little else.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
te_chris 16y ago
Maybe, but they still raise a vaild point. If i want to read about windows 7 on my mac apple can't stop but i'm also not just going to sell the mac because I read an article. This is a pretty epic display of insecurity on Apple's part.
- Groxx 16y ago
  Insecurity: different issue entirely, though I generally agree. Mobile platforms are an extremely active battleground right now, though. Not sure what the valid point would be. "Where this is going"? It's not going anywhere. A similar rule exists in the Mac App Store guidelines... both of which merely mean you can't cite other OSes in the app store. The app can internally / on their site advertise that they're also on Windows, just not in the store. It's not a very surprising requirement, as it's a locked-to-a-single-OS store, and it's easy to get around if your app has any purpose aside from advertising the competition. Putting the magazine as an app on the store would be nigh-impossible, because you couldn't mention its primary purpose, but it'd likely get by with no issue if such a thing were achieved without being misleading.
  - confuzatron 16y ago
    Mobile platforms are an extremely active battleground right now, though. The mind boggles that we're in a situation where arguments like this are put forward. No offence to you specifically Groxx, but... I feel like Apple has exiled us all to crazy land.

thought_alarm 16y ago

The iTunes App Store is a very valuable and powerful marketing, publishing, sales, and distribution resource. It was created by Apple to attract 3rd party developers to the iPhone, with the ultimate goal of selling more devices to more users. They succeeded wildly. Apple would not and cannot prevent you from reading an Android magazine on your iPhone, but they are under no obligation to publish, market, distribute, and sell anyone's content, especially one dedicated solely to a competing product. If someone wants to sell an Android magazine to iPhone users they're going to have to publish, market, and distribute it themselves, over the web, just like they would have to if the App Store didn't exist. Why would anyone expect to use Apple's marketing resources to advertise a competing product? Well, they wouldn't. But it does make for a nice publicity stunt, apparently. Placement in the App Store isn't a right, it's a privilege, just like any other store.

tewks 16y ago
Your argument would be completely correct if the App Store were not the sole means of distribution of native software to iOS devices. Because the App Store is the sole means of said distribution, the validity of your argument becomes much murkier. In my opinion, Apple should enhance the permissions system and allow the installation of software from other sources. The App Store would still reign supreme, generate revenue, et cetera and users would largely continue to be protected from malicious software. This sort of discussion would be moot as a result and your argument would stand.
- Groxx 16y ago
  Because it's the sole means of distribution, but they're not significantly the biggest / only fish in the pond, it falls solidly in allowable-anti-competitive-behavior land. Anti-competitive, certainly, but there are plenty of other phones out there. If you want an iPhone, you want an iPhone and everything that goes with it, and this is one of those things. Opening it up would be nice, I doubt anyone would disagree with that, but it's fully within their interest, ability, and right to restrict it. Maybe not best interest, but it's their decision to make.
- thought_alarm 16y ago

siglesias 16y ago

I think there's something rather juvenile about pointing out that every well-meaning rule or law based system has its hazy areas, gray zones, and ambiguities. The developer here is ostensibly exercising deliberate provocation. I'd much rather wait until a well-meaning, well-intended app, one that is attempting to be useful to a regular person, is rejected for unreasonable reasons and get outraged about that. This meanwhile is clearly a bid for attention. Somebody who is deliberately provoking Apple for reasons "uphill" from more insidious reasons is wasting our time. In my opinion most slippery slope arguments are just bad arguments used to make something look much worse than it is.

rooshdi 16y ago
How do you know this was his clear intention? Everyone is going to have a different opinion on what a "well-meaning, well-intended app" is and restricting certain apps based on what one considers "well-meaning" is a very myopic and inconsiderate view to have.
- siglesias 16y ago
  This argument doesn't fly because you are making "well-meaning" out to be more ambiguous and subject to disagreement than it actually is. All of us exercise judgment every day about well-meaningness when we excuse people for bumping into us, saying something they didn't intend, misunderstanding an unfamiliar rule or custom. It's what we do without thinking twice. You though, like many, many, others, are getting caught up in the subjective nature of exercising judgment and would like to see a list of necessary and sufficient conditions that is followed logically and to a t, something like a mathematics that has right and wrong and no in between. Unfortunately these things don't exist. If you look at how government and academia played out we have a judiciary systems and admissions systems that, yeah, have a few well-meaning people exercising judgment about slew of important topics that affect lots of people. It's either that or anarchy. There is subjectivity about a lot if concepts, laws, and institutions we don't have a choice but to share. The presence of subjectivity is not grounds for eliminating that institution.
  - 16y ago

billmcneale 16y ago

This gives us a good idea of what an Apple monopoly would look like. Suddenly, Microsoft's monopoly doesn't look that evil, does it? Thanks Google and thanks Android for giving us an alternative.

siculars 16y ago

What kind of restrictions will the app store for the next os x release, lion, have? Yes, I realize it is in the ToS as Groxx pointed out but come on. This is just getting ridiculous.

confuzatron 16y ago

Well, think about it this way: would you want your children reading a publication about Android? Because hey - if you're cool with that, go ahead and get them an Android phone.

Joeri 16y ago

There's no slippery slope here. From day one apple has been crystal clear that this was _their_ platform, and that everyone on it had to play by their rules. When you buy an iOS device, it's not your device, it remains their device. Can't deal with that? Don't buy it! Now, apple _is_ going somewhere with OS X. They're starting to lock it down. Lion will still be open enough from what I gather, but they're gradually changing the rules of what tweaking you'll be able to do with your mac. I don't like that, so I see a possibility of a return to linux for me.

Anechoic 16y ago
but they're gradually changing the rules of what tweaking you'll be able to do with your mac How exactly?