5 ms·

They didn't say the support had to be removed just the mentioning of the other platform.

by gabeio 11y ago

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.
    - gambiter 11y ago
      I can understand what you mean, but isn't the consumer's best interest sort of... subjective? Apple has obviously gone to great lengths to make their walled garden a reliable and safe place for consumers who have chosen to buy their products. If you talked to Tim Cook or Jony Ive, I bet they would make a case that the best thing for consumers is to be entirely invested in the Apple ecosystem. After all, it DOES give you the most consistent experience. So if you look at it from that perspective, who's right is it to go into a company and say, "No, that's not what's best for the consumer!" Obviously people like what they are getting, otherwise they would be defecting to Android in droves. Contrary to what some people are saying here, they DO have a choice. Thinking through it logically, I just can't see any scenario where a company, no matter how large, should be forced to push a competitor's products.
  - yellowapple 11y ago
    That's not quite comparable to what Apple's doing. Here's a better analogy: Amazon sells set-top boxes. Apple TVs, Rokus, the works. They also sell HDMI sticks, like Chromecasts. All of a sudden, they come out with a product called the "Fire TV". It integrates with Prime, and in comes in either stick or box form, depending on your preference. All is well in the world. But then, all of a sudden, Apple and Netflix and Google find that their Amazon product pages for Apple TV and Roku and Chromecast (respectively) aren't published anymore. When they ask Amazon about it, Amazon stubbornly replies with some rule in their ToS about mentioning competing products. Is Amazon's behavior in this scenario ethical? Is it worthy of brushing off as "that's how the market works"? This differs from your analogy by the order of events. In your analogy, your movie theater existed before the attempt to buy an ad for a competitor. In the case of my analogy (and, indeed, in the case of what Apple's doing now), it would instead be akin to you running a TV station that runs ads for a theater, you opening up a theater of your own, and you then banning the ads of the other theater while running your own ads on the TV station you own.
    - gambiter 11y ago
      First of all, Apple isn't PULLING apps now that the Apple Watch is released. The Pebble app is still there, and you can still use it. This whole uproar is about a single developer who had his app denied by a specific reviewer at Apple for a basic breach of their terms and conditions for putting Apps on the App Store. The general consensus seems to be that a simple rewording (maybe not even having to remove the word 'Pebble') is all that he needs. Also, a theater buying a TV/Radio station and not allowing competing theaters to run ads is perfectly acceptable and realistic. Overall, I'm failing to see your point. Not to be a broken record, but these are competing businesses. It doesn't really matter if you s/Apple/Amazon|Google/g and s/Pebble/Netflix|Roku/g, all you're really arguing is that a company doesn't have a right to control a marketplace that they OWN. I get that choice is great for the consumer, and I totally agree. It's absolutely best to have the ability to choose the devices you want, have them interconnect, and to be able to run the software that you want on them. I also think there should be no war or crime, and that the 1%'s money should be spread out evenly over the population. I (shockingly) think that no one should treat ANYONE unfairly. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world. As long as we allow competition between businesses, they are going to, well, compete. Just because one gets very large and popular doesn't suddenly mean the rules have to change for it.
erikpukinskis 11y ago
Seems like it might be hard to build a UI for Pebble support without mentioning the name Pebble, but I guess it's possible. It would make it a lot harder for users to discover the feature, which is sort of like saying support has to be removed. > Specifically, -> your app <- and app description declare support for thePebble Smartwatch.

They didn't say the support had to be removed just the mentioning of the other platform.

by 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.
  - gambiter 11y ago
    I can understand what you mean, but isn't the consumer's best interest sort of... subjective? Apple has obviously gone to great lengths to make their walled garden a reliable and safe place for consumers who have chosen to buy their products. If you talked to Tim Cook or Jony Ive, I bet they would make a case that the best thing for consumers is to be entirely invested in the Apple ecosystem. After all, it DOES give you the most consistent experience. So if you look at it from that perspective, who's right is it to go into a company and say, "No, that's not what's best for the consumer!" Obviously people like what they are getting, otherwise they would be defecting to Android in droves. Contrary to what some people are saying here, they DO have a choice. Thinking through it logically, I just can't see any scenario where a company, no matter how large, should be forced to push a competitor's products.
- yellowapple 11y ago
  That's not quite comparable to what Apple's doing. Here's a better analogy: Amazon sells set-top boxes. Apple TVs, Rokus, the works. They also sell HDMI sticks, like Chromecasts. All of a sudden, they come out with a product called the "Fire TV". It integrates with Prime, and in comes in either stick or box form, depending on your preference. All is well in the world. But then, all of a sudden, Apple and Netflix and Google find that their Amazon product pages for Apple TV and Roku and Chromecast (respectively) aren't published anymore. When they ask Amazon about it, Amazon stubbornly replies with some rule in their ToS about mentioning competing products. Is Amazon's behavior in this scenario ethical? Is it worthy of brushing off as "that's how the market works"? This differs from your analogy by the order of events. In your analogy, your movie theater existed before the attempt to buy an ad for a competitor. In the case of my analogy (and, indeed, in the case of what Apple's doing now), it would instead be akin to you running a TV station that runs ads for a theater, you opening up a theater of your own, and you then banning the ads of the other theater while running your own ads on the TV station you own.
  - gambiter 11y ago
    First of all, Apple isn't PULLING apps now that the Apple Watch is released. The Pebble app is still there, and you can still use it. This whole uproar is about a single developer who had his app denied by a specific reviewer at Apple for a basic breach of their terms and conditions for putting Apps on the App Store. The general consensus seems to be that a simple rewording (maybe not even having to remove the word 'Pebble') is all that he needs. Also, a theater buying a TV/Radio station and not allowing competing theaters to run ads is perfectly acceptable and realistic. Overall, I'm failing to see your point. Not to be a broken record, but these are competing businesses. It doesn't really matter if you s/Apple/Amazon|Google/g and s/Pebble/Netflix|Roku/g, all you're really arguing is that a company doesn't have a right to control a marketplace that they OWN. I get that choice is great for the consumer, and I totally agree. It's absolutely best to have the ability to choose the devices you want, have them interconnect, and to be able to run the software that you want on them. I also think there should be no war or crime, and that the 1%'s money should be spread out evenly over the population. I (shockingly) think that no one should treat ANYONE unfairly. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world. As long as we allow competition between businesses, they are going to, well, compete. Just because one gets very large and popular doesn't suddenly mean the rules have to change for it.

erikpukinskis 11y ago

Seems like it might be hard to build a UI for Pebble support without mentioning the name Pebble, but I guess it's possible. It would make it a lot harder for users to discover the feature, which is sort of like saying support has to be removed. > Specifically, -> your app <- and app description declare support for thePebble Smartwatch.