5 ms·

It’s honestly amazing that there’s basically no way to run software on your iPhone unless Apple approves of every aspect of it, including the name.

vmception 6y ago
At least it doesn't take 10 days anymore I think it was 5 years ago already when Apple got it down to 1 day
foolfoolz 6y ago
that’s not true. this applies to the app store
bstar77 6y ago
You can say this about any closed platform. There's nothing wrong with closed platforms having these policies if they are advertised and designed as such. Apple has been consistent from day one. there are other options, buy an Android or Linux mobile device if you want something a bit more open.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  It happens on open platforms, too. Trademark lawyer sends a cease and desist. Unless you’re flush with cash, you rename the app.
  - sellyme 6y ago
    > Unless you’re flush with cash, you rename the app. Or if you're willing to take the gamble. My default response to C&Ds (and other similar notices) that have no actual legal justifiability behind them is a nice succinct "fuck off", and I've yet to receive any follow-up from about a dozen such interactions. Now at least some of those "legal notices" were clearly from people who had never interacted with a lawyer in their lives (my personal favourite was someone who insisted that having their username on a ban list for cheating in a video game was a violation of the GDPR), but there's a lot of entities who have a track record of spamming anyone they can find with vague threats in the hope that some people will cave in to their bullying, fully aware that they can do absolutely nothing to those who don't. I'm no expert on Japanese trademark law, but I suspect it's very unlikely that Clubhouse has any case here.
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  Even then, it's clear that Google aspires to be more like Apple with every iteration of their software. And the number of people opting for Linux at this point are insignificant.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  Apple has been consistent from day one They have only been consistent in having a walled garden. Their rules have been inconsistent in how the rules are applied.
- mjthompson 6y ago
  It is true that as a consumer, I can avoid Apple products. The real issue relates to the options open to app publishers, that is, people who want to distribute an app. There is no viable alternative for a company wishing to publish an app: you have to target iOS or you perish. Many companies today need to have an iOS app. For example, a bank, or a big chain grocery outlet, probably needs an iOS app to exist in the market. This isn't a tiny niche area which can be avoided. The only way you can publish an app is with Apple's approval. Therefore, Apple are exercising a significant degree of market power. In the US, the idea that because a company is private it can trade however it pleases has been rejected since 1890 when the Sherman Act was introduced. It's the same in most capitalist economies. The conduct of companies is subject to reasonable regulation to ensure healthy competition. I've established earlier that Apple has significant market power in the mobile app space. Because of that, it's fair that we ask Apple to be reasonable when deciding what apps to approve, and the conditions on which they approve them, because they are exercising a significant degree of market power. This is a space calling for regulation. Apple and Google should not be free to reject or impose conditions on apps as they wish. We have a right, as the people who make rules about how companies may trade, to ask for them to be regulated when they are exercising a significant degree of market power.
  - hctaw 6y ago
    It's perfectly reasonable to not distribute on Apple platforms. Many companies choose to do this, and have for decades! The viable alternative is a web page. But yes, if you want the security and performance supported on a native Apple platform, you have to play by Apple's rules. Harm to companies isn't harm to consumers.
    - bmarquez 6y ago
      Except when Apple neglects web page technology (example: push notifications are available on every browser platform except iOS). And harm to companies is harm to consumers when they purchase products with applications that get taken away due to Apple (example: I upgraded my iPhone to play Fortnite, which was available on iOS at the time of purchase -- now it's not).
  - 6y ago
simias 6y ago
It amazes that that this is still considered amazing. Apple is the gatekeeper of software running on the app store, always has been, probably always will be (modulo a successful anti-trust campaign I suppose). If you want to be able to decide what runs on your device, don't get an iphone. That's why I don't own one myself. If on the other hand you want the peace of mind of letting Apple gatekeep the software you can use on your device, then it makes perfect sense. As someone who's spent more hours than I really care to count removing all sorts of crapware, browser extensions and website notifications from friends and family's PCs, I definitely see where Apple is coming from here. Enforcing naming conventions so that apps do what they say and say what they do doesn't strike me as particularly draconian or unexpected in this context. It's not a bug, it's a feature, and if that's a problem for you then don't buy iphones.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  Enforcing naming conventions so that apps do what they say and say what they do doesn't strike me as particularly draconian or unexpected in this context. Uber, Tinder, Twitter, and countless others would dispute the "Apple just want's accurate app name descriptions" theory. And in this case "Crabhouse" is a highly accurate description, or at least more so than many others.
  - krisgenre 6y ago
    Don't forget 'Apple' :)
  - simias 6y ago
    I agree that it's very arbitrary, but the justification that it could set a precedent by allowing effectively "copycat" application using spelling to mislead users holds some water IMO. It's especially problematic when application names are translated in other scripts and languages, which is the case here. Imagine if a south african made a "facebok" app to share pictures of goats (bok meaning goat in afrikaans), I'm sure it would be rejected on the same grounds. But I agree that the decision is very arbitrary and it can be frustrating if you're on the receiving end, but such is life on Apple's walled garden. Like it or leave it.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jb1991 6y ago
It's honestly amazing to me that the most predictable comment is also the most tired. Software philosophies differ.
krzrak 6y ago
> It’s honestly amazing that there’s basically no way to run software on your iPhone unless Apple approves of every aspect of it, including the name. Frankly, I'm quite OK with that. Just today I was trying out some apps for tracking baby sleep/feeding/pooping (my wife expects to give birth in a week) and on iOS it was pretty nice and safe experience, with clean apps and my only concern was usability and features. I remembered my experience with Android, where I would have to rake through hundreds of fake/buggy/malicious apps.
- droidist2 6y ago
  I agree. It's fun to just download a few apps and try them out. I enjoy installing new apps on my phone. I've heard people say "I hate installing apps" and these people are almost always Android users.
  - spideymans 6y ago
    I haven't used Android for a few years, but back when I did it wasn't uncommon for me to come across apps that did horrible things, such as completely hijacking the Android UI to display ads or whatever. I bought into Apple's walled garden specifically to get away from this garbage, and I'll be none too pleased if legislation forces my user experience to be degraded.
- Nullabillity 6y ago
  Facebook is still on iOS. Zoom is still on iOS.
- libraryatnight 6y ago
  My younger self was all about the kind of freedom that makes people hate Apple. But my younger self didn't see the absolute disgusting mess the internet became (sorry teenage me, it's not a utopia unhindered by borders, fueled by access to free information). Now, sometimes I want Apple. Sometimes I want Disneyland. I get why at Disneyland a man mysteriously appeared out of nowhere in a red coat and white gloves to tell me and my kid friends to turn the system of a down coming from my buddies backpack speakers off because it's disruptive to the atmosphere. It's why you can have faith if you buy a Nintendo console you're going to get fun games anyone can enjoy. I get why apple doesn't want trash on their app store. When you buy Apple, you buy a device and an atmosphere. It's clean. It works.
heterodoxxed 6y ago
In exchange for an audience of 1.65 billion.
geofft 6y ago
Why is that amazing? I pay Apple a premium for that feature. Not everyone considers it a feature, and I'm glad that other products exist to provide choice in the market. But I do, and so do many others.
MattGaiser 6y ago
That's a feature for us iPhone users, not a bug. I don't need to consider risk when I do anything on an iPhone as there is next to no risk.
voceboy521 6y ago
who cares. that's the point of apple. they're your daddy. you can simply not use it
coldtea 6y ago
How is it amazing? That has been the case for game consoles and other stuff for ages. Same for most mobile phones, for the biggest part of their existance (where they just came with a few OEM supplied apps and that's it). That said, there is a way to run software that Apple doesn't approve: jailbraking.
amelius 6y ago
What amazes me more is that people accept it.

vmception 6y ago

At least it doesn't take 10 days anymore I think it was 5 years ago already when Apple got it down to 1 day

foolfoolz 6y ago

that’s not true. this applies to the app store

bstar77 6y ago

You can say this about any closed platform. There's nothing wrong with closed platforms having these policies if they are advertised and designed as such. Apple has been consistent from day one. there are other options, buy an Android or Linux mobile device if you want something a bit more open.

ceejayoz 6y ago
It happens on open platforms, too. Trademark lawyer sends a cease and desist. Unless you’re flush with cash, you rename the app.
- sellyme 6y ago
  > Unless you’re flush with cash, you rename the app. Or if you're willing to take the gamble. My default response to C&Ds (and other similar notices) that have no actual legal justifiability behind them is a nice succinct "fuck off", and I've yet to receive any follow-up from about a dozen such interactions. Now at least some of those "legal notices" were clearly from people who had never interacted with a lawyer in their lives (my personal favourite was someone who insisted that having their username on a ban list for cheating in a video game was a violation of the GDPR), but there's a lot of entities who have a track record of spamming anyone they can find with vague threats in the hope that some people will cave in to their bullying, fully aware that they can do absolutely nothing to those who don't. I'm no expert on Japanese trademark law, but I suspect it's very unlikely that Clubhouse has any case here.
rootusrootus 6y ago
Even then, it's clear that Google aspires to be more like Apple with every iteration of their software. And the number of people opting for Linux at this point are insignificant.
ineedasername 6y ago
Apple has been consistent from day one They have only been consistent in having a walled garden. Their rules have been inconsistent in how the rules are applied.
mjthompson 6y ago
It is true that as a consumer, I can avoid Apple products. The real issue relates to the options open to app publishers, that is, people who want to distribute an app. There is no viable alternative for a company wishing to publish an app: you have to target iOS or you perish. Many companies today need to have an iOS app. For example, a bank, or a big chain grocery outlet, probably needs an iOS app to exist in the market. This isn't a tiny niche area which can be avoided. The only way you can publish an app is with Apple's approval. Therefore, Apple are exercising a significant degree of market power. In the US, the idea that because a company is private it can trade however it pleases has been rejected since 1890 when the Sherman Act was introduced. It's the same in most capitalist economies. The conduct of companies is subject to reasonable regulation to ensure healthy competition. I've established earlier that Apple has significant market power in the mobile app space. Because of that, it's fair that we ask Apple to be reasonable when deciding what apps to approve, and the conditions on which they approve them, because they are exercising a significant degree of market power. This is a space calling for regulation. Apple and Google should not be free to reject or impose conditions on apps as they wish. We have a right, as the people who make rules about how companies may trade, to ask for them to be regulated when they are exercising a significant degree of market power.
- hctaw 6y ago
  It's perfectly reasonable to not distribute on Apple platforms. Many companies choose to do this, and have for decades! The viable alternative is a web page. But yes, if you want the security and performance supported on a native Apple platform, you have to play by Apple's rules. Harm to companies isn't harm to consumers.
  - bmarquez 6y ago
    Except when Apple neglects web page technology (example: push notifications are available on every browser platform except iOS). And harm to companies is harm to consumers when they purchase products with applications that get taken away due to Apple (example: I upgraded my iPhone to play Fortnite, which was available on iOS at the time of purchase -- now it's not).
- 6y ago

simias 6y ago

It amazes that that this is still considered amazing. Apple is the gatekeeper of software running on the app store, always has been, probably always will be (modulo a successful anti-trust campaign I suppose). If you want to be able to decide what runs on your device, don't get an iphone. That's why I don't own one myself. If on the other hand you want the peace of mind of letting Apple gatekeep the software you can use on your device, then it makes perfect sense. As someone who's spent more hours than I really care to count removing all sorts of crapware, browser extensions and website notifications from friends and family's PCs, I definitely see where Apple is coming from here. Enforcing naming conventions so that apps do what they say and say what they do doesn't strike me as particularly draconian or unexpected in this context. It's not a bug, it's a feature, and if that's a problem for you then don't buy iphones.

ineedasername 6y ago
Enforcing naming conventions so that apps do what they say and say what they do doesn't strike me as particularly draconian or unexpected in this context. Uber, Tinder, Twitter, and countless others would dispute the "Apple just want's accurate app name descriptions" theory. And in this case "Crabhouse" is a highly accurate description, or at least more so than many others.
- krisgenre 6y ago
  Don't forget 'Apple' :)
- simias 6y ago
  I agree that it's very arbitrary, but the justification that it could set a precedent by allowing effectively "copycat" application using spelling to mislead users holds some water IMO. It's especially problematic when application names are translated in other scripts and languages, which is the case here. Imagine if a south african made a "facebok" app to share pictures of goats (bok meaning goat in afrikaans), I'm sure it would be rejected on the same grounds. But I agree that the decision is very arbitrary and it can be frustrating if you're on the receiving end, but such is life on Apple's walled garden. Like it or leave it.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

jb1991 6y ago

It's honestly amazing to me that the most predictable comment is also the most tired. Software philosophies differ.

krzrak 6y ago

> It’s honestly amazing that there’s basically no way to run software on your iPhone unless Apple approves of every aspect of it, including the name. Frankly, I'm quite OK with that. Just today I was trying out some apps for tracking baby sleep/feeding/pooping (my wife expects to give birth in a week) and on iOS it was pretty nice and safe experience, with clean apps and my only concern was usability and features. I remembered my experience with Android, where I would have to rake through hundreds of fake/buggy/malicious apps.

droidist2 6y ago
I agree. It's fun to just download a few apps and try them out. I enjoy installing new apps on my phone. I've heard people say "I hate installing apps" and these people are almost always Android users.
- spideymans 6y ago
  I haven't used Android for a few years, but back when I did it wasn't uncommon for me to come across apps that did horrible things, such as completely hijacking the Android UI to display ads or whatever. I bought into Apple's walled garden specifically to get away from this garbage, and I'll be none too pleased if legislation forces my user experience to be degraded.
Nullabillity 6y ago
Facebook is still on iOS. Zoom is still on iOS.
libraryatnight 6y ago
My younger self was all about the kind of freedom that makes people hate Apple. But my younger self didn't see the absolute disgusting mess the internet became (sorry teenage me, it's not a utopia unhindered by borders, fueled by access to free information). Now, sometimes I want Apple. Sometimes I want Disneyland. I get why at Disneyland a man mysteriously appeared out of nowhere in a red coat and white gloves to tell me and my kid friends to turn the system of a down coming from my buddies backpack speakers off because it's disruptive to the atmosphere. It's why you can have faith if you buy a Nintendo console you're going to get fun games anyone can enjoy. I get why apple doesn't want trash on their app store. When you buy Apple, you buy a device and an atmosphere. It's clean. It works.

heterodoxxed 6y ago

In exchange for an audience of 1.65 billion.

geofft 6y ago

Why is that amazing? I pay Apple a premium for that feature. Not everyone considers it a feature, and I'm glad that other products exist to provide choice in the market. But I do, and so do many others.

MattGaiser 6y ago

That's a feature for us iPhone users, not a bug. I don't need to consider risk when I do anything on an iPhone as there is next to no risk.

voceboy521 6y ago

who cares. that's the point of apple. they're your daddy. you can simply not use it

coldtea 6y ago

How is it amazing? That has been the case for game consoles and other stuff for ages. Same for most mobile phones, for the biggest part of their existance (where they just came with a few OEM supplied apps and that's it). That said, there is a way to run software that Apple doesn't approve: jailbraking.

amelius 6y ago

What amazes me more is that people accept it.