5 ms·

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 submi

by toxican 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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)).
        AndrewStephens 12y ago
        You are technically correct (the best kind of correct), but Apple had a very small (and shrinking) market share. Where I lived (NZ) they were almost impossible to find - very few shops even carried them and you paid a large premium. SGI and Sun built specialized, expensive machines for specific professional markets and didn't really compete with Microsoft. In 1995, if you walked into a shop and said "I need a computer" you were shown a range of machines, all running Windows. It was hard to buy a bare machine without Windows unless you built it yourself. Various PC OEMs made noises about offering other OSes (or even creating their own) but Microsoft shut them down with licensing clauses. The court cases eventually had the desired effect and now OEMs are free to offer Linux and ChromeOS machines as well as Windows. Took a long time though.
- AlexandrB 12y ago
  > Apple is a vile antitrust monstrosity. These jerks needed to be slammed with a lawsuit long before this one single example of their flamboyant and abundant anti-competitive behavior. While Apple are being increasingly huge dicks with their ecosystem I think you'd be hard-pressed with an antitrust case because Apple does not have a monopoly (or even a majority marketshare) on mobile devices.
  - zamalek 12y ago
    > I think you'd be hard-pressed with an antitrust case because Apple does not have a monopoly on mobile devices. > [Merriam-Webster] of, relating to, or being legislation against or opposition to trusts or combinations; specifically: consisting of laws to protect trade and commerce from unlawful restraints and monopolies or unfair business practices. It doesn't only apply to monopolies but it is a very good tool for dealing with them.
  - captainmuon 12y ago
    They have a monopoly for the iOS platform, at least. And in some jurisdictions you don't need a monopoly to be guilty of anticompetitive behavior.
    - AlexandrB 12y ago
      Do you have the same stance on Twitter? Twitter has a monopoly on the Twitter platform and may choose not to provide API keys for apps that it doesn't want to exist. Is this abusing a monopoly? If not, why not?
      - Dylan16807 12y ago
        Twitter has definitely performed anticompetitively in the past like that. Legal or not, it's abusing their position.
      - Alupis 12y ago
        If Twitter was killing an App or Device made by a 3rd party simply because Twitter was entering that market and wished to monopolize the user-share, then yes I'd consider that anti-competitive. (yes, Twitter does just that, and yes, it's anti-competitive in my book). Simply not being able to mention "Android" or "Android Wear" or now "Pebble Watch" is ridiculous. If I chose to buy an Android Wear or Pebble Watch, it's because I felt it was a better match for me... I still would have bought an iPhone (since I'm looking for iPhone Apps).
- clarkmoody 12y ago
  The App Store is Apple's private property. As much as we disagree with its policies of mentioning Any Mobile OS Which Shall Not Be Named, we must allow Apple to do with its own property as it sees fit. This is the essence of liberty. As a developer, you are also at liberty to choose against developing for iOS if you disagree with Apple's policies.
  - zamalek 12y ago
    > The App Store is Apple's private property. Historically this hasn't been a hurdle for litigation. However, the floral language I used isn't only a result of the App Store - it arises from the many instances of this type of behavior. Take the interaction between iTunes and iDevices as another example. Want to use Winamp to manage your music? Tough. Want to get apps from another store? Tough. Want to browse your phone files with your OS native file manager? Tough. Want to develop apps for the device on anything but a Mac? Tough. Other companies were litigated for merely pre-installing software on their OS (even though alternatives could be installed at a later date). In many cases with Apple alternatives aren't a possibility whatsoever (unless you violate DMCA).
    - loumf 12y ago
      Microsoft had a monopoly on OSs for PCs, so they were not allowed to use that to give another piece of software an advantage. They did not simply have a monopoly on Windows users. In order to be regulated under Anti-trust, Apple would need to have a monopoly on some market that isn't simply described as "their customers". The closest they came was iPod, but it looks like that hovered around 75% http://stratechery.com/2010/apple-innovators-dilemma/ http://stratechery.com/2010/apple-innovators-dilemma/ So, would probably not fall under anti-trust.
      - yellowapple 12y ago
        Microsoft didn't actually have a monopoly; they got dinged for trying to create a monopoly by strong-arming OEMS that wanted to sell Windows with their PCs, but there were plenty of non-Windows-centric manufacturers (Apple, Sun, SGI, Be, etc.) and plenty of alternative operating systems, even for IBM-compatibles (one of which is now dominant in pretty much every realm other than desktop/laptop PCs).
- ptaipale 12y ago
  > Apple is a vile antitrust monstrosity. I think you want to say "anti-competetive", not "antitrust". Antitrust legislation is what is used against anti-competitive companies. But yes, otherwise you are absolutely right: Apple's behaviour is monopolistic and unfair and "vile" is not unjustified.
  - zamalek 12y ago
    Edited, thanks
mapgrep 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y ago
So apps for cars would be rejected? Tesla is literally a "mobile platform", hehe.
- Alupis 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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.

by toxican 12y ago

zamalek 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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)).
      - AndrewStephens 12y ago
        You are technically correct (the best kind of correct), but Apple had a very small (and shrinking) market share. Where I lived (NZ) they were almost impossible to find - very few shops even carried them and you paid a large premium. SGI and Sun built specialized, expensive machines for specific professional markets and didn't really compete with Microsoft. In 1995, if you walked into a shop and said "I need a computer" you were shown a range of machines, all running Windows. It was hard to buy a bare machine without Windows unless you built it yourself. Various PC OEMs made noises about offering other OSes (or even creating their own) but Microsoft shut them down with licensing clauses. The court cases eventually had the desired effect and now OEMs are free to offer Linux and ChromeOS machines as well as Windows. Took a long time though.
AlexandrB 12y ago
> Apple is a vile antitrust monstrosity. These jerks needed to be slammed with a lawsuit long before this one single example of their flamboyant and abundant anti-competitive behavior. While Apple are being increasingly huge dicks with their ecosystem I think you'd be hard-pressed with an antitrust case because Apple does not have a monopoly (or even a majority marketshare) on mobile devices.
- zamalek 12y ago
  > I think you'd be hard-pressed with an antitrust case because Apple does not have a monopoly on mobile devices. > [Merriam-Webster] of, relating to, or being legislation against or opposition to trusts or combinations; specifically: consisting of laws to protect trade and commerce from unlawful restraints and monopolies or unfair business practices. It doesn't only apply to monopolies but it is a very good tool for dealing with them.
- captainmuon 12y ago
  They have a monopoly for the iOS platform, at least. And in some jurisdictions you don't need a monopoly to be guilty of anticompetitive behavior.
  - AlexandrB 12y ago
    Do you have the same stance on Twitter? Twitter has a monopoly on the Twitter platform and may choose not to provide API keys for apps that it doesn't want to exist. Is this abusing a monopoly? If not, why not?
    - Dylan16807 12y ago
      Twitter has definitely performed anticompetitively in the past like that. Legal or not, it's abusing their position.
    - Alupis 12y ago
      If Twitter was killing an App or Device made by a 3rd party simply because Twitter was entering that market and wished to monopolize the user-share, then yes I'd consider that anti-competitive. (yes, Twitter does just that, and yes, it's anti-competitive in my book). Simply not being able to mention "Android" or "Android Wear" or now "Pebble Watch" is ridiculous. If I chose to buy an Android Wear or Pebble Watch, it's because I felt it was a better match for me... I still would have bought an iPhone (since I'm looking for iPhone Apps).
clarkmoody 12y ago
The App Store is Apple's private property. As much as we disagree with its policies of mentioning Any Mobile OS Which Shall Not Be Named, we must allow Apple to do with its own property as it sees fit. This is the essence of liberty. As a developer, you are also at liberty to choose against developing for iOS if you disagree with Apple's policies.
- zamalek 12y ago
  > The App Store is Apple's private property. Historically this hasn't been a hurdle for litigation. However, the floral language I used isn't only a result of the App Store - it arises from the many instances of this type of behavior. Take the interaction between iTunes and iDevices as another example. Want to use Winamp to manage your music? Tough. Want to get apps from another store? Tough. Want to browse your phone files with your OS native file manager? Tough. Want to develop apps for the device on anything but a Mac? Tough. Other companies were litigated for merely pre-installing software on their OS (even though alternatives could be installed at a later date). In many cases with Apple alternatives aren't a possibility whatsoever (unless you violate DMCA).
  - loumf 12y ago
    Microsoft had a monopoly on OSs for PCs, so they were not allowed to use that to give another piece of software an advantage. They did not simply have a monopoly on Windows users. In order to be regulated under Anti-trust, Apple would need to have a monopoly on some market that isn't simply described as "their customers". The closest they came was iPod, but it looks like that hovered around 75% http://stratechery.com/2010/apple-innovators-dilemma/ http://stratechery.com/2010/apple-innovators-dilemma/ So, would probably not fall under anti-trust.
    - yellowapple 12y ago
      Microsoft didn't actually have a monopoly; they got dinged for trying to create a monopoly by strong-arming OEMS that wanted to sell Windows with their PCs, but there were plenty of non-Windows-centric manufacturers (Apple, Sun, SGI, Be, etc.) and plenty of alternative operating systems, even for IBM-compatibles (one of which is now dominant in pretty much every realm other than desktop/laptop PCs).
ptaipale 12y ago
> Apple is a vile antitrust monstrosity. I think you want to say "anti-competetive", not "antitrust". Antitrust legislation is what is used against anti-competitive companies. But yes, otherwise you are absolutely right: Apple's behaviour is monopolistic and unfair and "vile" is not unjustified.
- zamalek 12y ago
  Edited, thanks

mapgrep 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y ago

So apps for cars would be rejected? Tesla is literally a "mobile platform", hehe.

Alupis 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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.