40 ms·

Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support

702 points by FreakyT 11y ago

ohjesusthatguy1 11y ago
"From Apple 3.1 - Apps or metadata that mentions the name of any other mobile platform will be rejected" Doesn't seem that difficult to understand to me. Is this the one?:https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/seanav-us-nautical-charts/id632635827?ls=1&mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/seanav-us-nautical-charts/id... It looks like they'd have had to add the "works with pebble" item for this go-around. EDIT: The pebble mention has been in the description for a while: https://web.archive.org/web/20140214043815/https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/seanav-us-nautical-charts/id632635827?ls=1&mt=8 https://web.archive.org/web/20140214043815/https://itunes.ap... It's just being rejected this time. And why is this surprising behavior from Apple?
toxican 11y ago
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 intentionally rejecting Pebble-supporting apps. After all, let's look at another comment: > By that logic, Apple should also reject Pebble's app. Which they haven't done yet.
- zamalek 11y ago
  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.
  - toxican 11y ago
    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.
    - karl_gluck 11y ago
      I've said it before and here it is again: 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.
      - AndrewStephens 11y ago
        You should stop saying this. Microsoft didn't get prosecuted for controlling what things end-users could do with Windows. They got punished for using their market share to make it impossible for computer manufacturers to build computers that didn't include software from Microsoft, illegally maintaining their monopoly at the OEMs (and ultimately consumers) expense. Apple has nowhere near the market share that Microsoft has back in the 90's and if you don't like this decision you can take your money elsewhere. In the 90's you literally could not. It is a totally different situation.
        yellowapple 11y ago
        > In the 90's you literally could not. You actually still could. There were plenty of non-Windows OEMs back then (SGI, Apple, and Sun are examples; all of them built desktops/workstations without Windows installed (instead using IRIX / Mac OS / SunOS/Solaris, respectively)).
- mapgrep 11y ago
  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 US has previously been approved by Apple with no problem, we have had Pebble support in SeaNav for nearly 2 years" The poster gives no reason to believe the metadata has changed recently to mention Pebble. Granted this is based on one example, but it seems unfair to say this was already the policy. Here's a second example, the official Fitbit app, which does repeatedly mention the Fitbit device in the metadata. https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fitbit/id462638897?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fitbit/id462638897?mt=8
  - MBCook 11y ago
    Apple is well known for enforcing rules spottily if at all. TONS of app violate some of the rules (such as ads through push notifications). Many of them seem to be there as justification to choose from if they see something they don't like.
  - callesgg 11y ago
    Actually, I cant see any place in the description that mentions that the Fitbit device is some sort of device. Their description is extremely vague.
  - brlewis 11y ago
    Currently no Fitbit devices allow you to run apps on them, so "mobile platform" doesn't apply as it does to Pebble. But regardless of whether it's evenly applied or not, I don't like their policy.
- druidsbane 11y ago
  So apps for cars would be rejected? Tesla is literally a "mobile platform", hehe.
  - Alupis 11y ago
    Well, you jest now, but if rumors ever come to fruition (I don't believe they will) and Apple enters the "smart car" market, by this policy, Apps for Ford or Honda compatibility would start to get rejected.
- mikeash 11y ago
  "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 violations. Apple frequently rejects app updates because of features which were in previous, accepted versions while claiming that the rule in question is not new. Apple frequently rejects apps for rules that aren't written down anywhere, which they insist are ironclad, and which disappear the moment you bring public attention to the situation. It's like, Dr. Frankenstein is up in his castle doing some weird shit. Should we grab our pitchforks and torches, or should we see exactly what he's doing first? What if Dr. Frankenstein has been unleashing weird undead horrors upon the town at an average rate of once a week for the past seven years? At some point it becomes reasonable to just assume that he's up to the same stuff as usual.
  - jasonlotito 11y ago
    This comment is far more true than people realize. And the worst part is, it's not an exaggeration in the slightest. > You cannot point to the acceptance of one app as evidence that some rule isn't being applied to another app. This is something they won't even discuss if you question how other apps can have some feature they may not like. You could have the same exact feature, and you'll get rejected.
    - s73v3r 11y ago
      Because someone else breaking the rules is no excuse for you breaking the rules. It's like when you were a kid, and you tried to say, "But Johnny's doing it!".
      - mikeash 11y ago
        Yeah, but when you don't think you're actually breaking the rules, "you never did anything about that guy" is good support. This is not a case of somebody breaking the rules and trying to say that the rules do not apply. This is a case of the rules suddenly being reinterpreted to mean something completely different from what they used to mean. Imagine if you stepped on a worm and then got arrested for murder. Would it not be a reasonable thing to say, "uh, there's another guy stepping on worms right over there and you're not arresting him, so what gives?"
- gibsonje 11y ago
  The OP replied in that article's comments saying that their appeal was rejected with a statement that any reference to Pebble in the description had to also be removed.
canistr 11y ago
IIRC, this has to do with specifying "Pebble" and competitors in the App Store description. Same issue has occurred with apps that specify Samsung, Google, etc. in their descriptions and screenshots. You just have to remove them.
- higherpurpose 11y ago
  Sounds like a very arbitrary rule, also worthy of an anti-trust investigation. What's next? Censoring "Google" words from the iPhone keyboard and iMessage?
  - stephenr 11y ago
    An antitrust case because apple are using their minority position in the market to tell developers not to advertise other platforms on theirs? Sure, sounds appropriate.
- wvenable 11y ago
  It's not the same because the Pebble is an iOS accessory! So it's extremely relevant whether or not the iOS app supports it as a feature. This is completely different from specify Samsung, Google, etc which would have nothing to do with the iOS app.
sesteel 11y ago
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.
- jimrandomh 11y ago
  If the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit proved anything, it's that the US government is not powerful enough to bring meaningful enforcement action against a corporation of that size.
- gabeio 11y ago
  They didn't say the support had to be removed just the mentioning of the other platform.
  - sesteel 11y ago
    It is still anticompetitive, suppressing information about a competitor's product helps the consumer in 0 ways.
    - gabeio 11y ago
      Not disagreeing they are only helping themselves here. At least the support for the watch is not removed (which is a plus for now).
    - gambiter 11y ago
      You start up movie theater. You sell ads to marketing companies for before the movie. One of those ads is pushing a competing movie theater. Are you really saying you would allow it to run just so that you can 'help the consumer'? Businesses are in competition... that's how the market works.
      - sesteel 11y ago
        I understand that is how that the market works. It may not be a "problem" in people's current understanding of the law, but I certainly think a problem is being exposed here. I am arguing that Apple has created something different with the AppStore; a privileged sub-market. Because the burden of changing markets is heavily in Apple's favor they should, as a large public company, be required to serve the public good and manage it in the consumer's best interest, not their own.
slackstation 11y ago
Why do people even feign objection at this point? You have built your house on someone else's land. Don't be surprised when they force you to tear down the guest house you just built.
- pjc50 11y ago
  It's funny that HN is normally so free-market that people here are happy to accept this sort of market feudalism: the company running the market for iOS apps gets to make their own rules, no matter how arbitrary.
  - k-mcgrady 11y ago
    It is a free market when you look at the bigger picture. You don't have to develop apps for iOS, you can develop them for other platforms and no one will stop you. iOS is part of the app market and as it's a free market Apple can control their portion however they like.
yoda_sl 11y ago
Not sure what really is the big deal here... Apple had I think such requirements for not mentioning any other products or even mentioning pricing in your product description aka "On sale today only for $0.99" will get the same rejection... It is ok to put a % So this is nothing new and just one Apple employee/reviewers that follow the rules from the guidelines... If the folks that were submitting the app try to resubmit and remove references of Pebble, most likely their app will be approved without problems. Since their issue is with the app description, it is simply a metadata rejection of the app, and the developer do not even need to submit a new binary: just edit the app description and problem solved... It shouldn't even made it in the top HN stories IMHO
- emsy 11y ago
  I think the problem is that they are (again) inconsistent with applying their own rules and the bad timing, since Apple just released their own watch.
  - yoda_sl 11y ago
    Oh yes totally agreeing on that... I am not sure how many reviewers they have and some are more lenient whereas others are not... Trying to fight Apple here on simple words is a lost battle, and if they really care about getting their app to their users, the solution is a no brainer: edit the app description, save! Wait for approval, then done. It is only a metadata rejection and those are the one that are usually the easiest to fix
- onion2k 11y ago
  Apple had I think such requirements for not mentioning any other products... They have a line about not mentioning other mobile platforms. The latest version of SeaNav is 3.2.6, so it's been there for a while, with Apple happily accepting it and its description. What appears to have changed is Apple have decided that Pebble is a "mobile platform" only since the launch of the Apple Watch. That is arguably change to their rules to unfairly misuse their position as gatekeepers of the Apple ecosystem - they're abusing their market to negatively impact Pebble.
Someone1234 11y ago
This forum appears to have an invalid certificate: Domain: forums.getpebble.com CN = *.vanillaforums.com If you use HTTPS Everywhere, you'll want to uncheck this specific site, remove the HTTPS part of the URL and reload. PS - I love HTTPS Everywhere but it always surprises me just how many sites have broken HTTPS implementations.
- jackweirdy 11y ago
  And surprises me how few SSL-deploying sysadmins use HTTPS Everywhere! (Or perhaps, how few browse their own site...)
  - hluska 11y ago
    I'm getting the sense that QA means something dramatically different to the web developers of today...Seldom a day goes by when I don't find major errors (that I would fire people for not catching) on major web apps!!
    - tekromancr 11y ago
      Yea, but sometimes it's impossible to offer TLS. Like, in this case, where a forum software is being hosted remotely, and they are putting a custom domain in front of it. Squarespace is another notable example. These services simply DON'T offer ssl support when used with custom domains. You really can't expect everything to work right when you aren't even offering the service that is being requested, can you?
  - yellowapple 11y ago
    That's because quite a few of us shunt the folks trying to access port 80 back onto port 443 (usually by redirecting the request to the https:// https:// equivalent, be it in the load balancer, in the web server, or (in some cases) in the application/site itself). The world's switching to HTTPS-only setups anyway (particularly when deploying JSON APIs, which are all the rage nowadays). Might as well be ahead of the curve.
- the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
berkay 11y ago
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.
- creshal 11y ago
  Yep. Same if you mention in your app that it's also available on Android. Fascist? Yes. Surprising? No. New? Certainly not.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - commandar 11y ago
    Other comments seem to indicate that this previously wasn't an issue for Pebble support. 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.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    There's a pretty big difference between "we also have a version of this app available for Android" and "this iOS app, right here, the one you're looking at and downloading, supports Pebble." Apple saying you can't advertise other versions of your product is slightly dickish but totally understandable. Apple saying you can't advertise features of your iOS app because they happen to involve competing products is completely unreasonable.
- cybrox 11y ago
  Still though, as a user, I want to know which platforms the app I'm downloading/buying supports. Granted, you could say it's advertisement but if you scratch every mention of any 'other' platform from App stores, platform compability and therefore user conform is decreased drastically!
minikites 11y ago
It's just a metadata problem, the author of this sensationalist piece even quotes it as such, maybe they're unclear what "metadata" means. > Please remove any instances of this information from your app and its marketing materials, including the Application Description, What's New info, Previews and screenshots. > Since your iTunes Connect Application State is Rejected, a new binary will be required. Make the desired metadata changes when you upload the new binary.
- BinaryIdiot 11y ago
  > It's just a metadata problem, the author of this sensationalist piece even quotes it as such, maybe they're unclear what "metadata" means. I think the issue here is that Apple is reclassifying smart watches as mobile platforms and thusly don't want you including it in your description. If I support a smart watch why the hell can't I MENTION that I support it? That's just unreasonable.
alanscarpa 11y ago
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 app store - their rules. Just remove mention it and it'll be approved.
- Drakim 11y ago
  Would it be okay for Google to censor competitors in their search?
  - cybrox 11y ago
    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 http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-4781_en.htm
    - AlexandrB 11y ago
      The difference is that Google has a near monopoly on search whereas Apple has no such monopoly on mobile platforms.
      - venomsnake 11y ago
        Apple has 100% monopoly on iOS platform.
        happyscrappy 11y ago
        And Ford has a monopoly on F-150s. Apple hate is quite blinding.
        anaptdemise 11y ago
ebbv 11y ago
There's a lot of cries of monopoly in here, yet the iPhone is routinely outsold by Android phones. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
- jdmichal 11y ago
  I see very few cries of monopoly, and many cries of antitrust. These are not the same thing, at all. This particular instance could be approaching a tying arrangement. It is certainly against the consumer's best interest. Also, under the Sherman act, conspiracy to monopoly is just as illegal as actual monopoly.
  - ebbv 11y ago
    I'm probably more progressive than most on HN, and would love to see big conglomerates broken up. But on this issue, I think the accusations of illegal activity are absurd for multiple reasons. 1) Apple does not have anything near total domination in the mobile arena. 2) Apple clearly has a right to control the content in their App Store. Whether that's removing offensive material or just material they don't like. 3) This is not a new provision being brought out to squash Pebble. If you want to go after Apple, go after the way they don't allow consumers to modify the software or install custom software on iOS. That's much more of a legitimate antitrust complaint than Apple controlling what content they host in the App Store.
    - jdmichal 11y ago
      > If you want to go after Apple, go after the way they don't allow consumers to modify the software or install custom software on iOS. I agree, because this is practically the same issue. The app store isn't just a way to get iOS software, it's the only way to get iOS software. Which means that being rejected from the app store means you cannot provide your product to those consumers. Which means Apple rejecting products from the store is the same thing as Apple stating that that company cannot provide that app to customers. You could see where this might become an issue when that reason for rejection has nothing to do with the actual application and everything to do with mentioning a competing product in the description. If side-loading was permitted, then I think (2) would hold. However, in our current world without side-loading, (2) basically states that Apple has full control over what software products consumers may purchase for their device. IANAL, but to me, that fact could bring antitrust liability.
nebulous1 11y ago
Until this happens again I would suspect this is just a mistake by whoever reviewed the app for Apple.
- andrewla 11y ago
  This is the only sensible reply on this thread. From the response that Apple provided: > We noticed that your app or its metadata contains irrelevant platform information in the app. Providing future platform compatibility plans, or other platform references, is not appropriate for the App Store. > Specifically, your app and app description declare support for the Pebble Smartwatch. It is pretty clear that the reviewer believed that the App was _also_ available for the Pebble Smartwatch, not that the iPhone app supported the Pebble as a peripheral, usable only if you have the app on your phone[1]. On that basis the app was rejected. I understand that the appeal process may be difficult, etc., but let's not get carried away with the idea that this is some grand plan by Apple to kill off all watch-like peripherals. [1] The peripheral relationship is quite clear, from the FAQ [2] > The Pebble Smartwatch and your iPhone and iPad need to be paired over Bluetooth to work together. This connection works over quite a range, 100ft (30m) in our testing but can sometimes drop. If the SeaNav watch face should disappear you will need to re-pair your Pebble with your iPhone/iPad. [2] https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1eOuyVQ4_VNJ4PKqybr62C4aTFbmVNLVbotHXG16Uf1Q/pub https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1eOuyVQ4_VNJ4PKqybr62...
  - nebulous1 11y ago
    The forum OP posted this: UPDATE 24th April:- Good news. Apple rang me directly late last night UK time at Pocket Mariner , apologised for rejecting our app in error and immediately approved our SeaNav app for sale.
epaga 11y ago
Flagged since this is complete non-news. Apple Watch is now an Apple product so it's now against the rules to mention Pebble in your app store description, a rule which has been around for a LONG time. EDIT: OK, OK. Unflagged since you apparently all really want to talk about this. :)
- vlunkr 11y ago
  It's still a rule worth discussing. I hardly think this deserves to be flagged.
  - epaga 11y ago
    I can see the community disagrees with me, which is fine. It just gets very old to see so much uproar over an IMHO completely standard App Store rejection. The rule makes complete sense to me (they don't want you using their App Store to point to competitors), and nowhere is Apple saying apps are not allowed to support Pebble - Pebble itself has an app! Now, if Apple decides to remove Pebble's own app from the store, that would be a reason for some justified uproar...
    - wvenable 11y ago
      The purpose of the application description is to describe the features of the application. If your application has Dropbox support then I think you'd agree it's perfectly reasonable to mention Dropbox in your app description. The Pebble is an iOS accessory. It's equally reasonable to describe Pebble support as a feature. This goes beyond simply not mentioning competitors; Apple is preventing developers from describing features of their iOS app. It might be the same rule, but it's being used quite differently and worryingly. Some apps only exist as companion apps for the Pebble, what are they going to put in their description?
- krschultz 11y ago
  I interpret the flag to mean "spam" or "offensive", not "This story doesn't interest me". That's why you are getting down votes. If you don't like the story, don't up vote it. Flagging things that are not spam or offensive either wastes mods time or raises the bar on what it takes to flag actually offensive things off the site.
k-mcgrady 11y ago
Total BS title. They are rejecting apps that mention other products in the metadata. If you submit an app that says 'also available on Android' the same thing will happen and it has been enforced for years. The rejection was very clear.
- Touche 11y ago
  It's worse discussing though because mentioning Pebble has not been enforced for years, it only started to be enforced when Apple created a competitive product.
  - ptaipale 11y ago
    Which looks like evidence about the anti-competitive nature of Apple's actions.
  - k-mcgrady 11y ago
    Sure it can be discussed but the rule is quite clear and my problem is with the title of the article which is completely untrue.
- hurricaneSlider 11y ago
  That is a very different situation. The app in question has pebble integration. It is not simply saying that SeaNav also has a pebble app, it is saying that one of SeaNav's features is that it can communicate with an Apple Phone.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    It's not a different situation at all.
- BinaryIdiot 11y ago
  This is incorrect. They are rejecting apps that mention other mobile platforms. Pebble is not a mobile platform, it's a smart watch platform. Them reclassifying it seems awfully timely. This makes the user experience of pebble watch owners worse as they won't be able to search for applications that support Pebble anymore; they'll have to find them elsewhere. Not being able to discover applications in an app store is just stupid.
fmsf 11y ago
My guess is that in Europe they could get an anti trust lawsuit. Comparing it with internet explorer on windows anti trust lawsuit from EU, Microsoft was forced to acknowledge and provide choice of competitor platforms that where compatible with the system (Firefox, Chrome, Opera,...). Under the same logic, pebble is just an laternative platform compatible with the system (IOS + SeaNav). But either way that is a behavior that is characteristic of Apple and doesn't surprise me at all.
- AlexandrB 11y ago
  Antitrust requires a monopoly position, which Apple doesn't have (but Microsoft did have). Apple are being dicks and should be smacked down for it in the market, but I doubt antitrust would stick.
  - lsllc 11y ago
    It's a duopoly, but in terms of revenue/prestige it's a de-facto monopoly. The simple fact is that that Apple can bully because NO developer can afford to walk away from the Apple App store; and the App Store is simply too big for the market to self-regulate. The anti-trust cases against Microsoft ultimately allowed Firefox, Opera, Chrome to flourish and eventually lead to the demise of IE's monopoly position.
    - Karunamon 11y ago
      Did it? Microsoft didn't get pwned in court over the fact that the OS came with a web browser, they got pwned in court because they were enforcing deals on OEMs that didn't allow them to include another browser. I'd argue that Firefox, Chrome, and Opera did not flourish because of a court ruling, they did so because they were better in every sense than IE. Microsoft has never stopped anyone from downloading whatever browser they choose.
      - lsllc 11y ago
        The EU stuck it to MS over the browser bundling.
zak_mc_kracken 11y ago
A good reminder of what it would be like if we lived in a world where there is no Android and iOS is a monopoly. Apple's anti competitive behavior puts Microsoft of the 90s to shame.
- blumkvist 11y ago
  Nowhere near...
  - random28345 11y ago
    > Nowhere near... You're right, Apple is significantly worse. Microsoft went out of it's way to make sure that competitors applications didn't work (DOS isn't done until Lotus 123 won't run). This sparked a development arms race wasting hundreds of hours of development time working around intentional compatibility bugs. On the other hand, Apple sometimes just doesn't let your software run at all. No matter what. Because fuck you, that's why. Your company plays by Apple's rules and tithes to Apple or it dies on iOS. Oh, and Apple reserves the right to kill your compay's sales on iOS for any time, any reason, including stealing all your ideas and competing with you.
    - blumkvist 11y ago
      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.
      - atomicfiredoll 11y ago
        > 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.
        blumkvist 11y ago
d0m 11y ago
It's a bit tricky. I agree with most comments here that Apple is in the right to control what appear in the description and metadata. Not just from a competitive standpoint but in a way to make the it better for the user experience. 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.
- mey 11y ago
  Under US law, it would be anti-competitive to use market control to stifle competition. I agree on your point about android, but you should be able to see what the software supports. Of course a court would need to decide, IANAL etc
  - loumf 11y ago
    Apple doesn't have control of the smart phone (or phone) market. Having control of the iPhone market is not considered monopolistic.
    - bontoJR 11y ago
      > Having control of the iPhone market is not considered monopolistic. ...and in an hypothetical lawsuit this will just turn in favor of Apple.
    - hub_ 11y ago
      But they do have exclusive control of the distribution channels of apps for iOS. That's a monopoly.
venomsnake 11y ago
Walled Gardens - stifling innovation since 2007. Nothing to see here, move on ...
fomojola 11y ago
Not at all surprising: got the exact same rationale for mentioning ChromeCast in the metadata of an app submission. Very confusing given the number of other apps that mention ChromeCast in the metadata, but such is life.
christop 11y ago
FWIW, we have an app that supports Pebble (mentioned in the app, on our website, but not in the iTunes description text) and we had an update approved today. Though our last few two or three releases have also contained Apple Watch support (which is mentioned in the description text).
ohjesusthatguy1 11y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20140214043815/https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/seanav-us-nautical-charts/id632635827?ls=1&mt=8 https://web.archive.org/web/20140214043815/https://itunes.ap... Okay, so the appstore description has previously mentioned the Pebble version. So I can understand the developer being upset that he's only now getting rejected for it, but he shouldn't exactly be surprised that Apple is finally doing this.
wnevets 11y ago
sounds like an antitrust violation or can they only be levied against google and microsft on HN?
ommunist 11y ago
Gooood case for a brave lawyer to make himself a name. He can try prohibit sales of all Apple products in the EU on the basis of the current anti-monopoly EC legislation using this as a case.
- BinaryIdiot 11y ago
  Every lawsuit seems to try this and it practically never works so I wouldn't get my hopes up.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  If that was a possibility, they would have tried it on the many other things they don't let you mention, like Android compatibility, Chromecast support, etc.
ainiriand 11y ago
This is just Apple being Apple, keep calm. They want this market finely roped and controlled, nothing else.
pasta_2 11y ago
It's really amusing that so many of you actually think that Apple is threatened by Pebble in the slightest that they would remove apps that supported it.
- lnanek2 11y ago
  Pebble actually has more units moved than any other smart watch at the moment. Samsung is second, followed by various Android Wear companies, and then Apple is last. More than threatened, right now they are completely beaten.
- yellowapple 11y ago
  It's really amusing that you actually think that Apple isn't threatened. Pebble is a competitor (and arguably among the most significant, if not the most significant) in a space which Apple seeks to enter. Of course they're threatened. Otherwise, they wouldn't be removing apps solely because they have the word "pebble" in their metadata.
vivaldifan 11y ago
Clear your way! Apple Watch is coming!
MrZongle2 11y ago
Think different. Or else.
- yellowapple 11y ago
  More like: Think different. As long as it's not different from us
bobjordan 11y ago
"What can we do? Help!" Well, that response from Apple seems pretty clear in describing the solution. Its the iPhone marketplace, not a mall, Apple owns it. They make the rules in their own store, being anticompetitive is allowed in your own store.
tjwebbusa 11y ago
Surely no one's actually surprised by this?
- lukifer 11y ago
  I still cannot fathom why outrage is consistently confused for shock or surprise. Prior expectations are 100% irrelevant.
RexRollman 11y ago
I like Apple, but like any big company, not everything they do is good. I hope the reaction to this gets them to realize it.
amelius 11y ago
That's just great. Capitalism without a free market.
JohnTHaller 11y ago
From the forum comments, this is new behavior. It seems connected to Apple entering Pebble's space with their new Apple Watch. The existing Terms of Service about competing platforms is now being interpreted to consider Pebble a competing platform. The developer appealed and Apple told them that they specifically can't mention Pebble anywhere in their app description or metadata. Other developers have confirmed that Apple is now forcing them to remove existing screenshots in the App Store that demonstrate a given app's functionality tied to the Pebble. So, yes, it is Apple being anti-competitive now that they have entered the same space as Pebble. Apple are attempting to kill off Pebble support within the iOS ecosystem. It appears Apple will only allow mentions of Apple Watch within the App Store and in screenshots, no other smart watches going forward.
- tkemp 11y ago
  Can you provide links to other cases where Apple has been restrictive about this?
  - JohnTHaller 11y ago
    You'll find multiple other developers of iOS apps with Pebble support complaining of the same issue with Apple in the comments of the page that's linked to.
fredley 11y ago
The Runkeeper app explicitly mentions Pebble Support, and was released on the 20th of April. https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/runkeeper-gps-running-walk/id300235330?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/runkeeper-gps-running-walk/i... I'm going to wait a little before passing judgement on this. Could just be a bad review/er. I do feel sorry for these devs though, running to 'the press' is something Apple passive-aggressively warns you not to do. Their future app-approval life could be quite unpleasant after this.
- noblethrasher 11y ago
  Then the "bad" reviewer would have been the one the approved the RunKeeper app since the guideslines specifically state that "Apps or metadata that mentions the name of any other mobile platform will be rejected"[1]. Edit: I do not endorse the app store guidelines. [1] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#metadata https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#met...
  - clarky07 11y ago
    Except Pebble isn't another mobile platform. It is an accessory.
    - brlewis 11y ago
      Pebble has apps: http://www.wareable.com/apps/the-best-apps-for-pebble-and-pebble-steel http://www.wareable.com/apps/the-best-apps-for-pebble-and-pe... And Pebble works even when you don't have your phone with you, so it's more of a mobile platform than Apple Watch.
      - clarky07 11y ago
        define "works even when you don't have your phone with you"? I have one, and most of the useful features definitely require my phone.
- sequoia 11y ago
mrsteveman1 11y ago
There used to be a client-side check for forbidden words or phrases in iTunes Connect while developers are entering that metadata (it may still be there I haven't checked lately), and they weren't all "swear words" or things you would expect to be automatically forbidden. For example, I recall the system preventing me from even saving the description during an update for Mi-Fi Monitor until I removed "AT&T" from the text, and that was back during AT&T's exclusivity period for the iPhone so I connected the dots and just removed it (which luckily didn't matter all that much). If there really is going to be a policy that apps may not mention Pebble or other similar devices in their descriptions, perhaps it'll show up in that automatic check soon (then again, imagine a blanket ban on the word "pebble", it's not just a smartwatch :) It would appear in this case that the SeaNav app is also involved in the MFI program (presumably to communicate with the Pebble directly and in ways that normal apps couldn't? I've never dealt with MFI as a developer). It strikes me as rather odd that if both the Pebble itself and this app are part of the MFI program, that Apple would wait until a normal app update was submitted by the SeaNav developer before notifying the developer of this change.
JacobEdelman 11y ago
This is really really fine for apple to do as they are just creating an option for a highly curated app store. I mean, if they were attempting to criminalize loading 3rd party apps/using alternative app stores then it would be horrible, but doing that would just be crazy.
s73v3r 11y ago
Title is misleading. They're not rejecting apps that code in support for Pebble. They're rejecting apps that say they support it in the App Store copy. This is nothing new; you've never been able to mention other platforms in your App Store copy.
- joenathan 11y ago
  Title isn't misleading. So you can support the Pebble Smartwatch, you just can't tell anyone about it?
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    Title is completely misleading, as it makes it sound like they're searching inside the binary's symbols for Pebble's SDK. They're not doing that. You simply cannot use Apple's platform to advertise alternate products. Just like you can't mention Android or Chromecast in your App Store copy. Put it in the app or on your website.
robgibbons 11y ago
I've worked for Apple twice in my life, but it's policies like this that keep me from ever being an Apple developer. I will never support the Apple software market, for as long as they continue being so transparently shitty to developers. Just look at how far Apple has come since the original Apple I, directly aimed at the DIY market. These days, Apple locks down everything, tightly controlling what developers (and users) can and cannot do. "Golden handcuffs" does not even begin to describe the level of restriction Apple exerts on the tech market.
billpg 11y ago
I'm shocked ─ shocked! ─ that Apple would do this.
chucksmart 11y ago
Sorry for the dumb question; but does Apple have absolute control over Apps on its platform; or is it possible to distribute App to iPhone users without store?
- bitsoda 11y ago
  Absolutely. The only other way is through the Cydia app store which requires a jailbroken device, or with a nifty web app.
- xsmasher 11y ago
  Mostly. It is possible to distribute applications to jailbroken phones without Apple's help, but that's a minority of phones. When a new version of iOS comes out, a new method of jailbreaking usually needs to be found. Stock phones can only install apps from the app store, or apps signed for that specific device by a developer. Developer signing is also controlled by Apple, though.
peter303 11y ago
Apple is evil.
talles 11y ago
> 3.1 Apps or metadata that mentions the name of any other mobile platform will be rejected https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#metadata https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#met...
MrPatan 11y ago
Hilarious. Serves them right for thinking too different.
lostgame 11y ago
If you want people to use your platform instead of a competing platform, please make your initial ecosystem cost less than $1000 for me to buy into. The Apple watch, complete with it's requirement to have an iPhone initially, makes the same kind of derp Apple made with the original iPod only supporting Macs, as a firewire-only product... I suppose at this point, they just don't even care anymore, what with the fact that anything they make will sell millions of units regardless of anything, but I would have paid $150 for that watch, that's if it would work without an iPhone. What if I just want a watch? Couldn't that potentially be a much larger market? Apple, I swear, as an iOS developer you put food on me and my partners' table, but you make it really, really, difficult to actually support you.
- lostgame 11y ago
  The cheapest Apple watch for me in Canada right now (correct me if I'm wrong) is a harrowing $449... Combine that with the minimum $469 I have to spend on an iPhone 5C, which is the cheapest model, and without AppleCare or taxes, I'm already close to $1k. For $1k, I can get a Surface Pro 3 ($499), a Nokia Lumia 520 unlocked ($179) a pebble smartwatch ($119), still have $200 to spare, and be able to use my watch without my goddamn smartphone. Give us a break.
mikecmpbll 11y ago
This doesn't surprise me. Our app relies on the Yubikey devices for 2-factor auth and since the iPad 4 Apple have deliberately blocked non-Apple devices working with the Camera Connection Kit, meaning that our customers cannot use our product with anything after the iPad 3. This obviously meant we had to drop support for Apple products and even for a small product like ours this has lost Apple hundreds of device sales from customers of ours purchasing other devices because of this. While Apple won't give a crap about those few sales, at some stage, their provincialism will come back to bite them.
philip1209 11y ago
I'm getting an SSL certificate error - the site is presenting a cert for *.vanillaforums.com.
- kbenson 11y ago
  The link provided is not HTTPS. Perhaps you have an extension that tries to automatically upgrade your connection to HTTPS?
uberlux 11y ago
Misleading headline; Apple is only rejecting apps that explicitly mention Pebble in their app description and metadata. Nothing to do with the actual functionality. App developers can get their app linked to from any website that lists apps with Pebble compatibility.
- lostgame 11y ago
  This needs more upvotes. Although, not being able to mention Pebble support in your description seems to really artificially limit your ability to let your customers know it's supported.
- yellowapple 11y ago
  The effect is ultimately the same. Why bother adding Pebble support if you can't tell users about it?
BringTheTanks 11y ago
This is not a change in Apple's policies, it's a fluke. The reviewer is interpreting the rule incorrectly. The rule is intended to avoid descriptions which refer to future plans for alternative platform support, or different ports of the app available on other platforms. The rule does not intend to withhold information on platform support for this app instance, or ban said platform support. For example: - "Also find our app on the Pebble Watch Store" (violation) - "This app syncs with Pebble Smartwatch" (not violation) Other examples: - "This feature is only available on our Windows Phone version of Office" (violation) - "We're moving to the Google Play store for Android" (violation) - "This app allows you to share files on all popular mobile platforms" (not violation) - "Tap together your iPhone to another iPhone, Android phone or WM phone to share contact info" (not violation) My guess is Apple will be reversing decision on that rejection soon.
- yellowapple 11y ago
  According to other posts in the linked discussion, other apps are being rejected under the same rationale and for the same reasons, and attempts to appeal those rejections aren't going through (Apple's reviewers are continuing to reject new versions of these apps until they remove any/all mention of "Pebble" in their metadata).
hellbanner 11y ago
A client's app was rejected because we mentioned Android in the description.. I replaced it with "the crossplatform app for -- ($market)" and it was accepted. Apple's review process is completely opaque to me. One time an app was rejected because the user signed in with a unique code instead of an email/password.. literally had to change the name of the textfield to "username" from "code" and added a password field that did nothing and it passed. Kafkaesque.
perfectstorm 11y ago
Not surprised at all. They rejected our app because one of the screenshots we had on iTunesConnect had the word 'Android'. We were just showing a job search page and one of the job description had Android in it.
pg_is_a_butt 11y ago
hacker news now posting lies in headlines. you can have pebble smartwatch support... you just cant use "support for pebble smartwatch" in your metadata that shows in the app store. you could say "support for various smartwatches" stop being lying idiots.
TheLoneWolfling 11y ago
I find it frustrating that this is both the thread with the most upvotes since "The sad state of sysadmin in the age of containers", and the most active thread, and yet it's not even on the front page. (#43 for me) HN seems to be a bit overzealous in penalizing the numbers of comments. If that's the reason for it being so far down. But regardless of the reason I've largely switched to /active as my default page. Far more interesting content, at least to me.
michel-slm 11y ago
Apple's anti-competitive instinct seems to be in overdrive these days. This is additional justification for my instinctive wariness to be sucked into their beautiful, expensive, and sterile walled garden.

702 points by FreakyT 11y ago

"From Apple 3.1 - Apps or metadata that mentions the name of any other mobile platform will be rejected" Doesn't seem that difficult to understand to me. Is this the one?:https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/seanav-us-nautical-charts/id632635827?ls=1&mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/seanav-us-nautical-charts/id... It looks like they'd have had to add the "works with pebble" item for this go-around. EDIT: The pebble mention has been in the description for a while: https://web.archive.org/web/20140214043815/https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/seanav-us-nautical-charts/id632635827?ls=1&mt=8 https://web.archive.org/web/20140214043815/https://itunes.ap... It's just being rejected this time. And why is this surprising behavior from Apple?

toxican 11y ago

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 intentionally rejecting Pebble-supporting apps. After all, let's look at another comment: > By that logic, Apple should also reject Pebble's app. Which they haven't done yet.

zamalek 11y ago
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.
- toxican 11y ago
  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.
  - karl_gluck 11y ago
    I've said it before and here it is again: 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.
    - AndrewStephens 11y ago
      You should stop saying this. Microsoft didn't get prosecuted for controlling what things end-users could do with Windows. They got punished for using their market share to make it impossible for computer manufacturers to build computers that didn't include software from Microsoft, illegally maintaining their monopoly at the OEMs (and ultimately consumers) expense. Apple has nowhere near the market share that Microsoft has back in the 90's and if you don't like this decision you can take your money elsewhere. In the 90's you literally could not. It is a totally different situation.
      - yellowapple 11y ago
        > In the 90's you literally could not. You actually still could. There were plenty of non-Windows OEMs back then (SGI, Apple, and Sun are examples; all of them built desktops/workstations without Windows installed (instead using IRIX / Mac OS / SunOS/Solaris, respectively)).
mapgrep 11y ago
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 US has previously been approved by Apple with no problem, we have had Pebble support in SeaNav for nearly 2 years" The poster gives no reason to believe the metadata has changed recently to mention Pebble. Granted this is based on one example, but it seems unfair to say this was already the policy. Here's a second example, the official Fitbit app, which does repeatedly mention the Fitbit device in the metadata. https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fitbit/id462638897?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fitbit/id462638897?mt=8
- MBCook 11y ago
  Apple is well known for enforcing rules spottily if at all. TONS of app violate some of the rules (such as ads through push notifications). Many of them seem to be there as justification to choose from if they see something they don't like.
- callesgg 11y ago
  Actually, I cant see any place in the description that mentions that the Fitbit device is some sort of device. Their description is extremely vague.
- brlewis 11y ago
  Currently no Fitbit devices allow you to run apps on them, so "mobile platform" doesn't apply as it does to Pebble. But regardless of whether it's evenly applied or not, I don't like their policy.
druidsbane 11y ago
So apps for cars would be rejected? Tesla is literally a "mobile platform", hehe.
- Alupis 11y ago
  Well, you jest now, but if rumors ever come to fruition (I don't believe they will) and Apple enters the "smart car" market, by this policy, Apps for Ford or Honda compatibility would start to get rejected.
mikeash 11y ago
"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 violations. Apple frequently rejects app updates because of features which were in previous, accepted versions while claiming that the rule in question is not new. Apple frequently rejects apps for rules that aren't written down anywhere, which they insist are ironclad, and which disappear the moment you bring public attention to the situation. It's like, Dr. Frankenstein is up in his castle doing some weird shit. Should we grab our pitchforks and torches, or should we see exactly what he's doing first? What if Dr. Frankenstein has been unleashing weird undead horrors upon the town at an average rate of once a week for the past seven years? At some point it becomes reasonable to just assume that he's up to the same stuff as usual.
- jasonlotito 11y ago
  This comment is far more true than people realize. And the worst part is, it's not an exaggeration in the slightest. > You cannot point to the acceptance of one app as evidence that some rule isn't being applied to another app. This is something they won't even discuss if you question how other apps can have some feature they may not like. You could have the same exact feature, and you'll get rejected.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    Because someone else breaking the rules is no excuse for you breaking the rules. It's like when you were a kid, and you tried to say, "But Johnny's doing it!".
    - mikeash 11y ago
      Yeah, but when you don't think you're actually breaking the rules, "you never did anything about that guy" is good support. This is not a case of somebody breaking the rules and trying to say that the rules do not apply. This is a case of the rules suddenly being reinterpreted to mean something completely different from what they used to mean. Imagine if you stepped on a worm and then got arrested for murder. Would it not be a reasonable thing to say, "uh, there's another guy stepping on worms right over there and you're not arresting him, so what gives?"
gibsonje 11y ago
The OP replied in that article's comments saying that their appeal was rejected with a statement that any reference to Pebble in the description had to also be removed.

canistr 11y ago

IIRC, this has to do with specifying "Pebble" and competitors in the App Store description. Same issue has occurred with apps that specify Samsung, Google, etc. in their descriptions and screenshots. You just have to remove them.

higherpurpose 11y ago
Sounds like a very arbitrary rule, also worthy of an anti-trust investigation. What's next? Censoring "Google" words from the iPhone keyboard and iMessage?
- stephenr 11y ago
  An antitrust case because apple are using their minority position in the market to tell developers not to advertise other platforms on theirs? Sure, sounds appropriate.
wvenable 11y ago
It's not the same because the Pebble is an iOS accessory! So it's extremely relevant whether or not the iOS app supports it as a feature. This is completely different from specify Samsung, Google, etc which would have nothing to do with the iOS app.

sesteel 11y ago

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.

jimrandomh 11y ago
If the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit proved anything, it's that the US government is not powerful enough to bring meaningful enforcement action against a corporation of that size.
gabeio 11y ago
They didn't say the support had to be removed just the mentioning of the other platform.
- sesteel 11y ago
  It is still anticompetitive, suppressing information about a competitor's product helps the consumer in 0 ways.
  - gabeio 11y ago
    Not disagreeing they are only helping themselves here. At least the support for the watch is not removed (which is a plus for now).
  - gambiter 11y ago
    You start up movie theater. You sell ads to marketing companies for before the movie. One of those ads is pushing a competing movie theater. Are you really saying you would allow it to run just so that you can 'help the consumer'? Businesses are in competition... that's how the market works.
    - sesteel 11y ago
      I understand that is how that the market works. It may not be a "problem" in people's current understanding of the law, but I certainly think a problem is being exposed here. I am arguing that Apple has created something different with the AppStore; a privileged sub-market. Because the burden of changing markets is heavily in Apple's favor they should, as a large public company, be required to serve the public good and manage it in the consumer's best interest, not their own.

slackstation 11y ago

Why do people even feign objection at this point? You have built your house on someone else's land. Don't be surprised when they force you to tear down the guest house you just built.

pjc50 11y ago
It's funny that HN is normally so free-market that people here are happy to accept this sort of market feudalism: the company running the market for iOS apps gets to make their own rules, no matter how arbitrary.
- k-mcgrady 11y ago
  It is a free market when you look at the bigger picture. You don't have to develop apps for iOS, you can develop them for other platforms and no one will stop you. iOS is part of the app market and as it's a free market Apple can control their portion however they like.

yoda_sl 11y ago

Not sure what really is the big deal here... Apple had I think such requirements for not mentioning any other products or even mentioning pricing in your product description aka "On sale today only for $0.99" will get the same rejection... It is ok to put a % So this is nothing new and just one Apple employee/reviewers that follow the rules from the guidelines... If the folks that were submitting the app try to resubmit and remove references of Pebble, most likely their app will be approved without problems. Since their issue is with the app description, it is simply a metadata rejection of the app, and the developer do not even need to submit a new binary: just edit the app description and problem solved... It shouldn't even made it in the top HN stories IMHO

emsy 11y ago
I think the problem is that they are (again) inconsistent with applying their own rules and the bad timing, since Apple just released their own watch.
- yoda_sl 11y ago
  Oh yes totally agreeing on that... I am not sure how many reviewers they have and some are more lenient whereas others are not... Trying to fight Apple here on simple words is a lost battle, and if they really care about getting their app to their users, the solution is a no brainer: edit the app description, save! Wait for approval, then done. It is only a metadata rejection and those are the one that are usually the easiest to fix
onion2k 11y ago
Apple had I think such requirements for not mentioning any other products... They have a line about not mentioning other mobile platforms. The latest version of SeaNav is 3.2.6, so it's been there for a while, with Apple happily accepting it and its description. What appears to have changed is Apple have decided that Pebble is a "mobile platform" only since the launch of the Apple Watch. That is arguably change to their rules to unfairly misuse their position as gatekeepers of the Apple ecosystem - they're abusing their market to negatively impact Pebble.

Someone1234 11y ago

This forum appears to have an invalid certificate: Domain: forums.getpebble.com CN = *.vanillaforums.com If you use HTTPS Everywhere, you'll want to uncheck this specific site, remove the HTTPS part of the URL and reload. PS - I love HTTPS Everywhere but it always surprises me just how many sites have broken HTTPS implementations.

jackweirdy 11y ago
And surprises me how few SSL-deploying sysadmins use HTTPS Everywhere! (Or perhaps, how few browse their own site...)
- hluska 11y ago
  I'm getting the sense that QA means something dramatically different to the web developers of today...Seldom a day goes by when I don't find major errors (that I would fire people for not catching) on major web apps!!
  - tekromancr 11y ago
    Yea, but sometimes it's impossible to offer TLS. Like, in this case, where a forum software is being hosted remotely, and they are putting a custom domain in front of it. Squarespace is another notable example. These services simply DON'T offer ssl support when used with custom domains. You really can't expect everything to work right when you aren't even offering the service that is being requested, can you?
- yellowapple 11y ago
  That's because quite a few of us shunt the folks trying to access port 80 back onto port 443 (usually by redirecting the request to the https:// https:// equivalent, be it in the load balancer, in the web server, or (in some cases) in the application/site itself). The world's switching to HTTPS-only setups anyway (particularly when deploying JSON APIs, which are all the rage nowadays). Might as well be ahead of the curve.
the_mitsuhiko 11y ago

berkay 11y ago

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.

creshal 11y ago
Yep. Same if you mention in your app that it's also available on Android. Fascist? Yes. Surprising? No. New? Certainly not.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- commandar 11y ago
  Other comments seem to indicate that this previously wasn't an issue for Pebble support. 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.
- mikeash 11y ago
  There's a pretty big difference between "we also have a version of this app available for Android" and "this iOS app, right here, the one you're looking at and downloading, supports Pebble." Apple saying you can't advertise other versions of your product is slightly dickish but totally understandable. Apple saying you can't advertise features of your iOS app because they happen to involve competing products is completely unreasonable.
cybrox 11y ago
Still though, as a user, I want to know which platforms the app I'm downloading/buying supports. Granted, you could say it's advertisement but if you scratch every mention of any 'other' platform from App stores, platform compability and therefore user conform is decreased drastically!

minikites 11y ago

It's just a metadata problem, the author of this sensationalist piece even quotes it as such, maybe they're unclear what "metadata" means. > Please remove any instances of this information from your app and its marketing materials, including the Application Description, What's New info, Previews and screenshots. > Since your iTunes Connect Application State is Rejected, a new binary will be required. Make the desired metadata changes when you upload the new binary.

BinaryIdiot 11y ago
> It's just a metadata problem, the author of this sensationalist piece even quotes it as such, maybe they're unclear what "metadata" means. I think the issue here is that Apple is reclassifying smart watches as mobile platforms and thusly don't want you including it in your description. If I support a smart watch why the hell can't I MENTION that I support it? That's just unreasonable.

alanscarpa 11y ago

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 app store - their rules. Just remove mention it and it'll be approved.

Drakim 11y ago
Would it be okay for Google to censor competitors in their search?
- cybrox 11y ago
  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 http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-4781_en.htm
  - AlexandrB 11y ago
    The difference is that Google has a near monopoly on search whereas Apple has no such monopoly on mobile platforms.
    - venomsnake 11y ago
      Apple has 100% monopoly on iOS platform.
      - happyscrappy 11y ago
        And Ford has a monopoly on F-150s. Apple hate is quite blinding.
        anaptdemise 11y ago

ebbv 11y ago

There's a lot of cries of monopoly in here, yet the iPhone is routinely outsold by Android phones. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

jdmichal 11y ago
I see very few cries of monopoly, and many cries of antitrust. These are not the same thing, at all. This particular instance could be approaching a tying arrangement. It is certainly against the consumer's best interest. Also, under the Sherman act, conspiracy to monopoly is just as illegal as actual monopoly.
- ebbv 11y ago
  I'm probably more progressive than most on HN, and would love to see big conglomerates broken up. But on this issue, I think the accusations of illegal activity are absurd for multiple reasons. 1) Apple does not have anything near total domination in the mobile arena. 2) Apple clearly has a right to control the content in their App Store. Whether that's removing offensive material or just material they don't like. 3) This is not a new provision being brought out to squash Pebble. If you want to go after Apple, go after the way they don't allow consumers to modify the software or install custom software on iOS. That's much more of a legitimate antitrust complaint than Apple controlling what content they host in the App Store.
  - jdmichal 11y ago
    > If you want to go after Apple, go after the way they don't allow consumers to modify the software or install custom software on iOS. I agree, because this is practically the same issue. The app store isn't just a way to get iOS software, it's the only way to get iOS software. Which means that being rejected from the app store means you cannot provide your product to those consumers. Which means Apple rejecting products from the store is the same thing as Apple stating that that company cannot provide that app to customers. You could see where this might become an issue when that reason for rejection has nothing to do with the actual application and everything to do with mentioning a competing product in the description. If side-loading was permitted, then I think (2) would hold. However, in our current world without side-loading, (2) basically states that Apple has full control over what software products consumers may purchase for their device. IANAL, but to me, that fact could bring antitrust liability.

nebulous1 11y ago

Until this happens again I would suspect this is just a mistake by whoever reviewed the app for Apple.

andrewla 11y ago
This is the only sensible reply on this thread. From the response that Apple provided: > We noticed that your app or its metadata contains irrelevant platform information in the app. Providing future platform compatibility plans, or other platform references, is not appropriate for the App Store. > Specifically, your app and app description declare support for the Pebble Smartwatch. It is pretty clear that the reviewer believed that the App was _also_ available for the Pebble Smartwatch, not that the iPhone app supported the Pebble as a peripheral, usable only if you have the app on your phone[1]. On that basis the app was rejected. I understand that the appeal process may be difficult, etc., but let's not get carried away with the idea that this is some grand plan by Apple to kill off all watch-like peripherals. [1] The peripheral relationship is quite clear, from the FAQ [2] > The Pebble Smartwatch and your iPhone and iPad need to be paired over Bluetooth to work together. This connection works over quite a range, 100ft (30m) in our testing but can sometimes drop. If the SeaNav watch face should disappear you will need to re-pair your Pebble with your iPhone/iPad. [2] https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1eOuyVQ4_VNJ4PKqybr62C4aTFbmVNLVbotHXG16Uf1Q/pub https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1eOuyVQ4_VNJ4PKqybr62...
- nebulous1 11y ago
  The forum OP posted this: UPDATE 24th April:- Good news. Apple rang me directly late last night UK time at Pocket Mariner , apologised for rejecting our app in error and immediately approved our SeaNav app for sale.

epaga 11y ago

Flagged since this is complete non-news. Apple Watch is now an Apple product so it's now against the rules to mention Pebble in your app store description, a rule which has been around for a LONG time. EDIT: OK, OK. Unflagged since you apparently all really want to talk about this. :)

vlunkr 11y ago
It's still a rule worth discussing. I hardly think this deserves to be flagged.
- epaga 11y ago
  I can see the community disagrees with me, which is fine. It just gets very old to see so much uproar over an IMHO completely standard App Store rejection. The rule makes complete sense to me (they don't want you using their App Store to point to competitors), and nowhere is Apple saying apps are not allowed to support Pebble - Pebble itself has an app! Now, if Apple decides to remove Pebble's own app from the store, that would be a reason for some justified uproar...
  - wvenable 11y ago
    The purpose of the application description is to describe the features of the application. If your application has Dropbox support then I think you'd agree it's perfectly reasonable to mention Dropbox in your app description. The Pebble is an iOS accessory. It's equally reasonable to describe Pebble support as a feature. This goes beyond simply not mentioning competitors; Apple is preventing developers from describing features of their iOS app. It might be the same rule, but it's being used quite differently and worryingly. Some apps only exist as companion apps for the Pebble, what are they going to put in their description?
krschultz 11y ago
I interpret the flag to mean "spam" or "offensive", not "This story doesn't interest me". That's why you are getting down votes. If you don't like the story, don't up vote it. Flagging things that are not spam or offensive either wastes mods time or raises the bar on what it takes to flag actually offensive things off the site.

k-mcgrady 11y ago

Total BS title. They are rejecting apps that mention other products in the metadata. If you submit an app that says 'also available on Android' the same thing will happen and it has been enforced for years. The rejection was very clear.

Touche 11y ago
It's worse discussing though because mentioning Pebble has not been enforced for years, it only started to be enforced when Apple created a competitive product.
- ptaipale 11y ago
  Which looks like evidence about the anti-competitive nature of Apple's actions.
- k-mcgrady 11y ago
  Sure it can be discussed but the rule is quite clear and my problem is with the title of the article which is completely untrue.
hurricaneSlider 11y ago
That is a very different situation. The app in question has pebble integration. It is not simply saying that SeaNav also has a pebble app, it is saying that one of SeaNav's features is that it can communicate with an Apple Phone.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  It's not a different situation at all.
BinaryIdiot 11y ago
This is incorrect. They are rejecting apps that mention other mobile platforms. Pebble is not a mobile platform, it's a smart watch platform. Them reclassifying it seems awfully timely. This makes the user experience of pebble watch owners worse as they won't be able to search for applications that support Pebble anymore; they'll have to find them elsewhere. Not being able to discover applications in an app store is just stupid.

fmsf 11y ago

My guess is that in Europe they could get an anti trust lawsuit. Comparing it with internet explorer on windows anti trust lawsuit from EU, Microsoft was forced to acknowledge and provide choice of competitor platforms that where compatible with the system (Firefox, Chrome, Opera,...). Under the same logic, pebble is just an laternative platform compatible with the system (IOS + SeaNav). But either way that is a behavior that is characteristic of Apple and doesn't surprise me at all.

AlexandrB 11y ago
Antitrust requires a monopoly position, which Apple doesn't have (but Microsoft did have). Apple are being dicks and should be smacked down for it in the market, but I doubt antitrust would stick.
- lsllc 11y ago
  It's a duopoly, but in terms of revenue/prestige it's a de-facto monopoly. The simple fact is that that Apple can bully because NO developer can afford to walk away from the Apple App store; and the App Store is simply too big for the market to self-regulate. The anti-trust cases against Microsoft ultimately allowed Firefox, Opera, Chrome to flourish and eventually lead to the demise of IE's monopoly position.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    Did it? Microsoft didn't get pwned in court over the fact that the OS came with a web browser, they got pwned in court because they were enforcing deals on OEMs that didn't allow them to include another browser. I'd argue that Firefox, Chrome, and Opera did not flourish because of a court ruling, they did so because they were better in every sense than IE. Microsoft has never stopped anyone from downloading whatever browser they choose.
    - lsllc 11y ago
      The EU stuck it to MS over the browser bundling.

zak_mc_kracken 11y ago

A good reminder of what it would be like if we lived in a world where there is no Android and iOS is a monopoly. Apple's anti competitive behavior puts Microsoft of the 90s to shame.

blumkvist 11y ago
Nowhere near...
- random28345 11y ago
  > Nowhere near... You're right, Apple is significantly worse. Microsoft went out of it's way to make sure that competitors applications didn't work (DOS isn't done until Lotus 123 won't run). This sparked a development arms race wasting hundreds of hours of development time working around intentional compatibility bugs. On the other hand, Apple sometimes just doesn't let your software run at all. No matter what. Because fuck you, that's why. Your company plays by Apple's rules and tithes to Apple or it dies on iOS. Oh, and Apple reserves the right to kill your compay's sales on iOS for any time, any reason, including stealing all your ideas and competing with you.
  - blumkvist 11y ago
    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.
    - atomicfiredoll 11y ago
      > 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.
      - blumkvist 11y ago

d0m 11y ago

It's a bit tricky. I agree with most comments here that Apple is in the right to control what appear in the description and metadata. Not just from a competitive standpoint but in a way to make the it better for the user experience. 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.

mey 11y ago
Under US law, it would be anti-competitive to use market control to stifle competition. I agree on your point about android, but you should be able to see what the software supports. Of course a court would need to decide, IANAL etc
- loumf 11y ago
  Apple doesn't have control of the smart phone (or phone) market. Having control of the iPhone market is not considered monopolistic.
  - bontoJR 11y ago
    > Having control of the iPhone market is not considered monopolistic. ...and in an hypothetical lawsuit this will just turn in favor of Apple.
  - hub_ 11y ago
    But they do have exclusive control of the distribution channels of apps for iOS. That's a monopoly.

venomsnake 11y ago

Walled Gardens - stifling innovation since 2007. Nothing to see here, move on ...

fomojola 11y ago

Not at all surprising: got the exact same rationale for mentioning ChromeCast in the metadata of an app submission. Very confusing given the number of other apps that mention ChromeCast in the metadata, but such is life.

christop 11y ago

FWIW, we have an app that supports Pebble (mentioned in the app, on our website, but not in the iTunes description text) and we had an update approved today. Though our last few two or three releases have also contained Apple Watch support (which is mentioned in the description text).

ohjesusthatguy1 11y ago

https://web.archive.org/web/20140214043815/https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/seanav-us-nautical-charts/id632635827?ls=1&mt=8 https://web.archive.org/web/20140214043815/https://itunes.ap... Okay, so the appstore description has previously mentioned the Pebble version. So I can understand the developer being upset that he's only now getting rejected for it, but he shouldn't exactly be surprised that Apple is finally doing this.

wnevets 11y ago

sounds like an antitrust violation or can they only be levied against google and microsft on HN?

ommunist 11y ago

Gooood case for a brave lawyer to make himself a name. He can try prohibit sales of all Apple products in the EU on the basis of the current anti-monopoly EC legislation using this as a case.

BinaryIdiot 11y ago
Every lawsuit seems to try this and it practically never works so I wouldn't get my hopes up.
s73v3r 11y ago
If that was a possibility, they would have tried it on the many other things they don't let you mention, like Android compatibility, Chromecast support, etc.

ainiriand 11y ago

This is just Apple being Apple, keep calm. They want this market finely roped and controlled, nothing else.

pasta_2 11y ago

It's really amusing that so many of you actually think that Apple is threatened by Pebble in the slightest that they would remove apps that supported it.

lnanek2 11y ago
Pebble actually has more units moved than any other smart watch at the moment. Samsung is second, followed by various Android Wear companies, and then Apple is last. More than threatened, right now they are completely beaten.
yellowapple 11y ago
It's really amusing that you actually think that Apple isn't threatened. Pebble is a competitor (and arguably among the most significant, if not the most significant) in a space which Apple seeks to enter. Of course they're threatened. Otherwise, they wouldn't be removing apps solely because they have the word "pebble" in their metadata.

vivaldifan 11y ago

Clear your way! Apple Watch is coming!

MrZongle2 11y ago

Think different. Or else.

yellowapple 11y ago
More like: Think different. As long as it's not different from us

bobjordan 11y ago

"What can we do? Help!" Well, that response from Apple seems pretty clear in describing the solution. Its the iPhone marketplace, not a mall, Apple owns it. They make the rules in their own store, being anticompetitive is allowed in your own store.

tjwebbusa 11y ago

Surely no one's actually surprised by this?

lukifer 11y ago
I still cannot fathom why outrage is consistently confused for shock or surprise. Prior expectations are 100% irrelevant.

RexRollman 11y ago

I like Apple, but like any big company, not everything they do is good. I hope the reaction to this gets them to realize it.

amelius 11y ago

That's just great. Capitalism without a free market.

JohnTHaller 11y ago

From the forum comments, this is new behavior. It seems connected to Apple entering Pebble's space with their new Apple Watch. The existing Terms of Service about competing platforms is now being interpreted to consider Pebble a competing platform. The developer appealed and Apple told them that they specifically can't mention Pebble anywhere in their app description or metadata. Other developers have confirmed that Apple is now forcing them to remove existing screenshots in the App Store that demonstrate a given app's functionality tied to the Pebble. So, yes, it is Apple being anti-competitive now that they have entered the same space as Pebble. Apple are attempting to kill off Pebble support within the iOS ecosystem. It appears Apple will only allow mentions of Apple Watch within the App Store and in screenshots, no other smart watches going forward.

tkemp 11y ago
Can you provide links to other cases where Apple has been restrictive about this?
- JohnTHaller 11y ago
  You'll find multiple other developers of iOS apps with Pebble support complaining of the same issue with Apple in the comments of the page that's linked to.

fredley 11y ago

The Runkeeper app explicitly mentions Pebble Support, and was released on the 20th of April. https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/runkeeper-gps-running-walk/id300235330?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/runkeeper-gps-running-walk/i... I'm going to wait a little before passing judgement on this. Could just be a bad review/er. I do feel sorry for these devs though, running to 'the press' is something Apple passive-aggressively warns you not to do. Their future app-approval life could be quite unpleasant after this.

noblethrasher 11y ago
Then the "bad" reviewer would have been the one the approved the RunKeeper app since the guideslines specifically state that "Apps or metadata that mentions the name of any other mobile platform will be rejected"[1]. Edit: I do not endorse the app store guidelines. [1] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#metadata https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#met...
- clarky07 11y ago
  Except Pebble isn't another mobile platform. It is an accessory.
  - brlewis 11y ago
    Pebble has apps: http://www.wareable.com/apps/the-best-apps-for-pebble-and-pebble-steel http://www.wareable.com/apps/the-best-apps-for-pebble-and-pe... And Pebble works even when you don't have your phone with you, so it's more of a mobile platform than Apple Watch.
    - clarky07 11y ago
      define "works even when you don't have your phone with you"? I have one, and most of the useful features definitely require my phone.
sequoia 11y ago

mrsteveman1 11y ago

There used to be a client-side check for forbidden words or phrases in iTunes Connect while developers are entering that metadata (it may still be there I haven't checked lately), and they weren't all "swear words" or things you would expect to be automatically forbidden. For example, I recall the system preventing me from even saving the description during an update for Mi-Fi Monitor until I removed "AT&T" from the text, and that was back during AT&T's exclusivity period for the iPhone so I connected the dots and just removed it (which luckily didn't matter all that much). If there really is going to be a policy that apps may not mention Pebble or other similar devices in their descriptions, perhaps it'll show up in that automatic check soon (then again, imagine a blanket ban on the word "pebble", it's not just a smartwatch :) It would appear in this case that the SeaNav app is also involved in the MFI program (presumably to communicate with the Pebble directly and in ways that normal apps couldn't? I've never dealt with MFI as a developer). It strikes me as rather odd that if both the Pebble itself and this app are part of the MFI program, that Apple would wait until a normal app update was submitted by the SeaNav developer before notifying the developer of this change.

JacobEdelman 11y ago

This is really really fine for apple to do as they are just creating an option for a highly curated app store. I mean, if they were attempting to criminalize loading 3rd party apps/using alternative app stores then it would be horrible, but doing that would just be crazy.

s73v3r 11y ago

Title is misleading. They're not rejecting apps that code in support for Pebble. They're rejecting apps that say they support it in the App Store copy. This is nothing new; you've never been able to mention other platforms in your App Store copy.

joenathan 11y ago
Title isn't misleading. So you can support the Pebble Smartwatch, you just can't tell anyone about it?
- s73v3r 11y ago
  Title is completely misleading, as it makes it sound like they're searching inside the binary's symbols for Pebble's SDK. They're not doing that. You simply cannot use Apple's platform to advertise alternate products. Just like you can't mention Android or Chromecast in your App Store copy. Put it in the app or on your website.

robgibbons 11y ago

I've worked for Apple twice in my life, but it's policies like this that keep me from ever being an Apple developer. I will never support the Apple software market, for as long as they continue being so transparently shitty to developers. Just look at how far Apple has come since the original Apple I, directly aimed at the DIY market. These days, Apple locks down everything, tightly controlling what developers (and users) can and cannot do. "Golden handcuffs" does not even begin to describe the level of restriction Apple exerts on the tech market.

billpg 11y ago

I'm shocked ─ shocked! ─ that Apple would do this.

chucksmart 11y ago

Sorry for the dumb question; but does Apple have absolute control over Apps on its platform; or is it possible to distribute App to iPhone users without store?

bitsoda 11y ago
Absolutely. The only other way is through the Cydia app store which requires a jailbroken device, or with a nifty web app.
xsmasher 11y ago
Mostly. It is possible to distribute applications to jailbroken phones without Apple's help, but that's a minority of phones. When a new version of iOS comes out, a new method of jailbreaking usually needs to be found. Stock phones can only install apps from the app store, or apps signed for that specific device by a developer. Developer signing is also controlled by Apple, though.

peter303 11y ago

Apple is evil.

talles 11y ago

> 3.1 Apps or metadata that mentions the name of any other mobile platform will be rejected https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#metadata https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#met...

MrPatan 11y ago

Hilarious. Serves them right for thinking too different.

lostgame 11y ago

If you want people to use your platform instead of a competing platform, please make your initial ecosystem cost less than $1000 for me to buy into. The Apple watch, complete with it's requirement to have an iPhone initially, makes the same kind of derp Apple made with the original iPod only supporting Macs, as a firewire-only product... I suppose at this point, they just don't even care anymore, what with the fact that anything they make will sell millions of units regardless of anything, but I would have paid $150 for that watch, that's if it would work without an iPhone. What if I just want a watch? Couldn't that potentially be a much larger market? Apple, I swear, as an iOS developer you put food on me and my partners' table, but you make it really, really, difficult to actually support you.

lostgame 11y ago
The cheapest Apple watch for me in Canada right now (correct me if I'm wrong) is a harrowing $449... Combine that with the minimum $469 I have to spend on an iPhone 5C, which is the cheapest model, and without AppleCare or taxes, I'm already close to $1k. For $1k, I can get a Surface Pro 3 ($499), a Nokia Lumia 520 unlocked ($179) a pebble smartwatch ($119), still have $200 to spare, and be able to use my watch without my goddamn smartphone. Give us a break.

mikecmpbll 11y ago

This doesn't surprise me. Our app relies on the Yubikey devices for 2-factor auth and since the iPad 4 Apple have deliberately blocked non-Apple devices working with the Camera Connection Kit, meaning that our customers cannot use our product with anything after the iPad 3. This obviously meant we had to drop support for Apple products and even for a small product like ours this has lost Apple hundreds of device sales from customers of ours purchasing other devices because of this. While Apple won't give a crap about those few sales, at some stage, their provincialism will come back to bite them.

philip1209 11y ago

I'm getting an SSL certificate error - the site is presenting a cert for *.vanillaforums.com.

kbenson 11y ago
The link provided is not HTTPS. Perhaps you have an extension that tries to automatically upgrade your connection to HTTPS?

uberlux 11y ago

Misleading headline; Apple is only rejecting apps that explicitly mention Pebble in their app description and metadata. Nothing to do with the actual functionality. App developers can get their app linked to from any website that lists apps with Pebble compatibility.

lostgame 11y ago
This needs more upvotes. Although, not being able to mention Pebble support in your description seems to really artificially limit your ability to let your customers know it's supported.
yellowapple 11y ago
The effect is ultimately the same. Why bother adding Pebble support if you can't tell users about it?

BringTheTanks 11y ago

This is not a change in Apple's policies, it's a fluke. The reviewer is interpreting the rule incorrectly. The rule is intended to avoid descriptions which refer to future plans for alternative platform support, or different ports of the app available on other platforms. The rule does not intend to withhold information on platform support for this app instance, or ban said platform support. For example: - "Also find our app on the Pebble Watch Store" (violation) - "This app syncs with Pebble Smartwatch" (not violation) Other examples: - "This feature is only available on our Windows Phone version of Office" (violation) - "We're moving to the Google Play store for Android" (violation) - "This app allows you to share files on all popular mobile platforms" (not violation) - "Tap together your iPhone to another iPhone, Android phone or WM phone to share contact info" (not violation) My guess is Apple will be reversing decision on that rejection soon.

yellowapple 11y ago
According to other posts in the linked discussion, other apps are being rejected under the same rationale and for the same reasons, and attempts to appeal those rejections aren't going through (Apple's reviewers are continuing to reject new versions of these apps until they remove any/all mention of "Pebble" in their metadata).

hellbanner 11y ago

A client's app was rejected because we mentioned Android in the description.. I replaced it with "the crossplatform app for -- ($market)" and it was accepted. Apple's review process is completely opaque to me. One time an app was rejected because the user signed in with a unique code instead of an email/password.. literally had to change the name of the textfield to "username" from "code" and added a password field that did nothing and it passed. Kafkaesque.

perfectstorm 11y ago

Not surprised at all. They rejected our app because one of the screenshots we had on iTunesConnect had the word 'Android'. We were just showing a job search page and one of the job description had Android in it.

pg_is_a_butt 11y ago

hacker news now posting lies in headlines. you can have pebble smartwatch support... you just cant use "support for pebble smartwatch" in your metadata that shows in the app store. you could say "support for various smartwatches" stop being lying idiots.

TheLoneWolfling 11y ago

I find it frustrating that this is both the thread with the most upvotes since "The sad state of sysadmin in the age of containers", and the most active thread, and yet it's not even on the front page. (#43 for me) HN seems to be a bit overzealous in penalizing the numbers of comments. If that's the reason for it being so far down. But regardless of the reason I've largely switched to /active as my default page. Far more interesting content, at least to me.

michel-slm 11y ago

Apple's anti-competitive instinct seems to be in overdrive these days. This is additional justification for my instinctive wariness to be sucked into their beautiful, expensive, and sterile walled garden.