16 ms·
I work on an e-commerce app, we were rejected because one of our screeenshots depicts a Microsoft surface. Only Apple products are allowed to be shown...
by root_axis 6y ago
I work on an e-commerce app, we were rejected because one of our screeenshots depicts a Microsoft surface. Only Apple products are allowed to be shown...
- ghostbrainalpha 6y agoThat sucks, but at least you got a clear statement of their issue and its relatively quick to resolve. How long did it take them to approve you after you properly communicated your enthusiasm for Apple products?
- matwood 6y agoApp store review and release is normally counted as hours now. The rules around showing other products are very clear. I know everyone reads the problem stories, but for the large majority of cases the App store rejection/fix cycle is detailed and easy. For us, it's usually a doh! on our part, fix and resend.
- benrbray 6y agoIf this isn't an abusive monopoly position, I don't know what is.
- dangus 6y agoInteresting, I didn’t know all it took was a 22.85% marketshare to become a monopoly. I wonder if Sony will let me put a picture of an Xbox One on my PS4 game.
- qmarchi 6y agoMarket share in this case is only one piece of the puzzle. Even if they make up 22% of market share (globally, it's 60% in the US), iOS usually makes it up in number of paying users.
- dangus 6y agoThe fact that iOS users are willing to pay seems irrelevant to me. It’s almost like calling Tesla a monopoly power in the automotive industry because they have >90% of the luxury EV market: you’ve already sub-divided the market so many times that the idea is weakened. In reality, most people use Android, and even in the US about half of them still use Android. If iOS is a monopoly then so is Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo. The dynamics of that market are quite similar. Microsoft had well over a 95% marketshare during their antitrust saga.
- tsimionescu 6y agoThe thing is, rather than absolute market share, the way you use your position is more important. If you have a powerful market position but just compete normally, you're usually ok. If you have a powerful market position and use it to corner other markets or stifle competition in other ways, you start having problems.
- scarface74 6y agoSo what is “competing normally”?
- tsimionescu 6y agoLowering prices or adding value, advertising. Doing stuff like blocking competitors from your platform, blacklisting people who do business with your competition would be examples of not competing normally. What Apple is doing is more subtle though - in general they are not using their position against Google, they are using it to force arbitrary conditions on companies seeking to do business on iOS and increase their own profits, to the detriment of end users. I believe the ultimate test for market abuse in the US is considered something like business practices that harm other companies without benefit to the end user. If the end user gets lower prices or better value Thanks to your practices, the free market is achieving its purpose. If they are not, but one company is getting better profits, than the market is being manipulated. As a side note, this is not the same test as in the EU for example, which makes price dumping (selling below cost of production) usually ok in the US, but not in the EU.
- liability 6y agoYou know Apple has fallen far when 'Apple isn't worse than Sony or Microsoft' becomes a popular refrain.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- gamblor956 6y agoAntitrust laws are about anticompetitive behavior, not just monopolies. Companies with a combined <50% of the marketplace have been found to violate antitrust laws as a result of price fixing (including Apple itself). And yes, you are allowed to put pictures of competing consoles in your game and even refer to the fact that they exist. They just don't want them in the digital listing. (In contrast: Apple forbids this, and in the past has rejected apps for even mentioning that Android versions exist.)
- viridian 6y agoYou realize when standard oil was ruled a monopoly and trust busted, it only had 19% of the US oil market share, right?
- nodamage 6y agoHuh? In 1904, Standard controlled 91 percent of production and 85 percent of final sales. Because of competition from other firms, their market share had gradually eroded to 70 percent by 1906 which was the year when the antitrust case was filed against Standard, and down to 64 percent by 1911 when Standard was ordered broken up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil
- viridian 6y agoWhen the government (congress) first sought to prosecute Standard oil among other companies in the late 1880s for noncompetitive behavior, the monopoly label was applied. This was a part of the actual formation of the Sherman antitrust act which passed in 1890, at which time standard oil refined about 19% of the oil in the US. I had my facts wrong though, I didn't realize that it took another 21 years after that for Standard oil to actually be broken up. That said, my point is largely more about the label of monopoly by the government than whether or not the company was broken up, so I think the argument still stands.
- newbie578 6y agoI wonder if people will stop spreading missinformation while defending Apple. Apple's marketshare in U.S. is around 52%, and no, worldwide marketshare does not matter to U.S. courts.
- benologist 6y agoThe congresspeople who investigated them for a year and a half also think they are abusive. > the investigation has confirmed that Apple, Google, Amazon, and Facebook are all abusing their market power to the detriment of consumers https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/26/antitrust-investigation-apple-disturbing-behavior/ https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/26/antitrust-investigation...
- tonyedgecombe 6y agoBut not Microsoft who still own 95% of the desktop market. I guess the others need to start funding more politicians.
- stale2002 6y agoCommon misconception. A monopoly itself is not illegal. What is illegal is using that monopoly/market power to keep out competitors. Windows, as a desktop OS, generally allows you to do whatever you want with it, and does not "abuse" its position to prevent competitors from being install on the computer, for example. If windows only allowed you to buy from certain app stores, that would be illegal.
- danudey 6y ago> Windows, as a desktop OS, generally allows you to do whatever you want with it, and does not "abuse" its position to prevent competitors from being install on the computer, for example. Microsoft got nailed for bundling Internet Explorer in with Windows and not allowing licensees (OEMs) to preinstall Netscape, even though nothing prevented users from installing the software after the fact. > If windows only allowed you to buy from certain app stores, that would be illegal. Isn't this the case for Windows RT, or is that dead already?
- xmprt 6y agoCould be the case for Windows RT but I'm not sure if that's relevant in this case because RT has a small market share.
- breakfastduck 6y agoHow on earth can it be a monopoly when it has the market share it does? I wish people would stop conflating Apple as a monopoly - their have their own platform (one of many widely available) and many people choose to use it. Do I agree with all their App Store behaviours? Obviously not, but it doesn't make them a monopoly. They're not 'abusing' their power - the App Store has always been this way. It's a way of delivering sand boxed apps that fit guidelines. Apple aren't going to stop you downloading an app off the internet and running it on your mac anytime soon.
- benrbray 6y agoIn terms of market share, I'd say it's akin to a regional monopoly. But that's not entirely what I meant. In my view, phones are general purpose computers. Apple also takes this view, which is the reason they have opened up a software marketplace on their devices. Just like with Amazon, there are thousands of companies whose revenue depends almost exclusively on their ability to compete in the marketplace set up by Apple. In this scenario, both Apple and Amazon are notorious for abusing their control of the marketplace to disadvantage third-party sellers in favor of first-party products / hardware / software. If a phone is NOT a general purpose computer, then Apple should disband the app store and only allow first-party apps to run. If a phone IS a general purpose computer, then Apple has an obligation to treat participants in the marketplace fairly, either by relaxing the app review process, or by allowing third-party marketplaces. They cannot have it both ways. Legally speaking, Apple may not need to change anything. However, I'm talking about how things SHOULD be, not how they ARE.
- valuearb 6y agoOpening up the platform ruins it. The walled garden is exactly why iPhones are so popular and iOS developers so successful.
- _qulr 6y agoiOS developers are not successful in general. The top 1% of App Store developers make the vast majority of the App Store revenue. Apple doesn't seem to care, because they get their 30% regardless of how the other 70% of the revenue is distributed.
- Axsuul 6y agoI can see where you're coming from but I don't see how this is monopolistic. Apple wants a consistent brand and doesn't want to confuse the consumer. Would it make sense to have a Huawei device plastered over screenshots?
- pier25 6y ago> Would it make sense to have a Huawei device plastered over screenshots? Why not? An app might be crossplatform and the screenshot might be featuring these capabilities with Android or Windows.
- framecowbird 6y agoOf course it's what Apple wants, that's not the question. The question is whether they are suppressing competition in such a way that it eventually becomes detrimental to the whole market.
- mytherin 6y agoIt isn't an abusive monopoly position basically by definition: Apple is not a monopoly in any market that they participate in. There is tons of competition in smartphones, laptops, etc. The problem is not one of monopolies - the problem is that a set of private companies - including Apple - control critical digital infrastructure. This digital infrastructure is required by almost all other companies and people to function, yet it is in private hands, and they can do with it as they please. Imagine if all roads were owned by a small number of private companies, and you would need their permission to use the roads. That is what is happening in the digital world right now.
- damnyou 6y agoIt is not a monopoly, sure, but it is an abuse of market power. Apple and Google form an oligopoly and both firms abuse their market power as part of it. A firm being a "monopoly" is not a requirement under US antitrust law. A concentration of market power is, and Apple + Google absolutely have it.
- manigandham 6y agoThe marketshare definition of a monopoly is poor and obsolete. How much control they have over your devices and your life is much more descriptive, and in that case Apple has significant power with control over roughly half of the mobile ecosystem.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- babypuncher 6y agoBut it's not very hard for me to just go buy a different phone if I'm unhappy with what Apple is doing with the iPhone.
- manigandham 6y agoYou only have 2 choices, iOS or Android. How about we have more accountability for the 2 trillion dollar company instead of telling consumers to just deal with it?
- cwhiz 6y agoWhy would Apple want screenshots in the iOS or Mac App Store that show devices that cannot run iOS or macOS? Would Sony or Microsoft allow PS4 or Xbox devices in their respective digital store listings? No way. You should either provide screenshots without a device or show a device that the application will actually run on. Honestly I would say it's pretty lazy to provide screenshots depicting a device where the app can't even run.
- marcinzm 6y agoYou misunderstand, they were selling a PHYSICAL Microsoft device in their e-commerce store that sells physical items. Nonetheless, showing a product you can buy in the app that is not Apple branded was not allowed.
- JohnBooty 6y agoNonetheless, showing a product you can buy in the app That would be extremely bad, but that's not the scenario the original poster described. They had a Microsoft product in their App Store screenshots. There are countless e-commerce apps (Amazon, eBay etc) available for iOS that will happily let you purchase competitors' products. Also worth noting that you can get Microsoft apps in the iOS App Store and that some of these apps compete with Apple's own apps.
- Dracophoenix 6y agoSo how does that work for Amazon, Rakuten, Alibaba, Walmart, Costco, Best Buy, et al. ?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- tinus_hn 6y agoHow is it a monopoly if you can afford to leave the Mac App Store?
- matwood 6y agoThis is common in any store, and has been this way on the Apple's app store since the beginning. No store is going to carry product marketing which actively advertises a competitor. It's best just to make device free screenshots to avoid this issue, and not have them become dated by showing a device. Out of all the issues with the app stores, this is not one IMO.
- smolder 6y agoI don't think this is accurate. We have another poster here saying they see Apple devices in marketing for Android apps, and my experience publishing to the play store says this is likely only something apple cares to police.
- matwood 6y agoI was saying stores in general. Not just app stores. I don't see Amazon letting you link out to Walmart (or show Walmart ads) and vice versa. Maybe there are ones that slip through, but it's the exception.
- panpanna 6y agoWhat happened to "Think Different™"?
- dathinab 6y agoRemember the people watch, as far as I remember apps where not allowed to state that they are compatible with it in the app store.
- cwhiz 6y agoThose guidelines are absolutely crystal clear. You aren't even supposed to show the device at all, just screens of the required sizes.
- an_opabinia 6y agoIt brings to mind all sorts of positive things they could do only as the final arbiter of the only marketplace. As Tim Cook said it's not all about the bloody ROI. For example, they could require that the models depicted in app store screenshots are visibly diverse in all locales. They could require a certain level of screen reader or even color blindness affordances. They could require that the ultimate beneficial owner (UBO) of the software be listed on the app store page. Disclose which companies' telemetry software ships in the SDKs of the apps. List their UBOs. Require apps to disclose their in-app marketing budget. I guarantee you this would correlate strongly negatively with app quality. Many radical ideas.
- thewhitetulip 6y agoUBO the way you said it brings back painful memories when it took me 2 weeks to understand all the Ownership hierarchies !
- Macha 6y ago> For example, they could require that the models depicted in app store screenshots are visibly diverse in all locales. Doesn't this disadvantage smaller developers from countries less diverse than the United States?
- whatshisface 6y agoThe irony of the US exporting its own ethnic mix as a mandatory global culture hegimonic thing would be too much to bear. ;)
- danudey 6y agoHow irate would people be if a developer from Nairobi got their app update rejected because they couldn't find an Asian woman to pose for one of their screenshots for the App Store? I agree that diversity is a good thing, but it's important to remember that not every developer can afford to hire models to show diversity that doesn't exist in their country.
- deleted 6y ago
- numair 6y agoWell, this actually makes sense, because you can't use the app you download on the App Store on a Microsoft Surface. Maybe that's obvious to you and I, but the App Store is used by hundreds of millions of people of varying levels of technical knowledge... The worrying position would be if Apple demanded special features for the iOS version of the app, or if they asked you to get rid of the Microsoft version altogether. If we got to a point where stories/rumors like that started to emerge, that's when everyone would be in trouble.
- Daishiman 6y ago> Well, this actually makes sense, because you can't use the app you download on the App Store on a Microsoft Surface. Come on....
- lovehashbrowns 6y agoIt's getting pretty absurd how people excuse Apple for these things. Of course an e-commerce app might show a product they sell on one of their screenshots...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- fastball 6y agoI think you misunderstand. It wasn't a picture of the app running on a Surface. It was a Surface depicted within the app itself.
- tspike 6y agoYou can certainly use the app you download on the App Store to purchase a Microsoft Surface. They object to any depiction whatsoever of any other platform.
- grishka 6y agoThat's interesting — as an Android user, I see apps with iPhones on their screenshots all the time. Sometimes they are iPhones with Android UI photoshopped into them.
- lscotte 6y agoYou have to remember that in the Apple reality distortion field there is only Apple. I think you get thrown out of the cult if you acknowledge other things exist.
- grishka 6y agoI'm well aware of that because my computer runs macOS. Interestingly, it syncs with my Google account just fine. But of course I don't enjoy the level of integration I'd have with an iPhone.
- mns 6y agoWe had some promotional illustrations on our platform with a guy holding a phone that resembles an iPhone and had Microsoft as a client. We had to take the phone out of the promotional images as it was not ok for them... There are a lot of overly zealous people in all companies.
- chipotle_coyote 6y agoI was going to say, this particular nonsense is not peculiar to Apple. I had a Kindle ebook rejected because it mentioned other ebook stores by name.
- carstenhag 6y agoCar companies are always nervous if you have any icon, asset or Placeholder containing 4 wheels. Might be the competitors car model... Totally.
- Aeolun 6y agoWouldn’t that be good for the car company? If their competitor is going to deliver a block with 4 wheels next, I’m inclined to think their sales will rise.