
Apple Bans the Word 'Android' From App Store - Tichy
http://www.pcworld.com/article/188696/apple_bans_the_word_android_from_app_store.html/
======
lt
The application in question has not even been rejected, much less mass banning
of apps that contain the word happened. They just suggested not to mention the
competitor's platform:

 _While your application has not been rejected, it would be appropriate to
remove 'Finalist in Google's Android Developer's Challenge!' from the
Application Description_

I can understand why that would be appropriate. Most users would have no idea
what Google's Android Developer's Challenge is: "How do I download the other
finalist apps?" "I bought this application that says it's Android - how do I
run it in my wife's Nexus One?".

Not to mention the courtesy of not promoting competitors products in one
vendor's own turf.

This is a huge overreaction by the PCWorld editor to linkbait you all. Even
the application author thought it was reasonable. I'm surprised no one had
picked up on this yet.

~~~
donaq
While I agree that the article title was linkbait, I think the author had a
valid point in noting that mentioning that the app was a finalist in a big
competition does help in vouching for the app's usefulness. This isn't
something that Apple should be discouraging, and the fact that they do does
make them seem, well, petty.

~~~
9oliYQjP
The app wasn't a finalist. You can't enter an iPhone app in an Android
competition. Logic like this is what makes people think Microsoft Office for
Mac is as full featured as Microsoft Office on Windows. They're too very
different products with different codebases and functionality that attempt to
mimic some behaviour between each other. Have you seen the frustration of an
Office:Mac user when they realize, for instance, that they can't do something
simple like get Entourage to work with an Exchange server or get Office to
connect to Sharepoint?

~~~
donaq
Is that relevant? The point I was making is that Apple should not be
discouraging it regardless. Be that as it may, you make an interesting one.
Are you saying that Microsoft should be discouraged from marketing Office for
Mac as Microsoft Office? That does not seem like a reasonable position to
take.

------
mattfitzgerald
Currently deciding whether to buy an iPhone or an android phone. This has made
the decision easy - android all the way.

~~~
zitterbewegung
App stores are generally broken because you can have the ability to ban
things. We should have an open appstore.

~~~
Zak
The mechanism of banning apps is useful so that users can have a trusted place
to get apps known to be free of malware.

The way to make sure that mechanism doesn't result in evil policy is to allow
an alternate means of installing software. Google does this. Apple does not.

~~~
buster
and mentioning android in the app description is in which way malware? i see
the point in verifying apps that need security (banking mostly). but that
doesnt account for 99.99% of apps. Plus, mostly what you hear about which apps
where banned, it's not about security. It's about bookreaders that can show
the kamasutra (which the browser can, too). It's about software that
"replicates" apples functionality. You will never have alternative browsers or
mail programs and be tied to apples mercy. I have the choice. Let's face it,
the appstore is apples way to have control over its customers.

~~~
dtby
_i see the point in verifying apps that need security (banking mostly)._

I don't understand how you're using "security" in this sentence.

------
ryanwaggoner
It's hard to understand how an organization as savvy as Apple could do
something like this. What do they really think they're going to get out of it,
other than bad press? I'm not even saying that the tradeoffs aren't worth it,
but that there's no upside at all. What possible benefit could this have?

~~~
9oliYQjP
Actually it's really simple to understand. Last time I checked, Google had a
trademark on the word Android. An integral part of trying to assert a
trademark is enforcing certain usages. Otherwise people start calling all
similar products by your product's name (e.g., paper tissues become Kleenex)
and you lose that trademark.

From Google themselves (<http://www.google.com/permissions/guidelines.html>):

"One of the conditions for all uses is that you can't mess around with our
marks. Only we get to do that. Don’t remove, distort or alter any element of a
Google Brand Feature. That includes modifying a Google trademark, for example,
through hyphenation, combination or abbreviation, such as: Googliscious,
Googlyoogly, GaGooglemania. Do not shorten, abbreviate, or create acronyms out
of Google trademarks"

...

"Don’t incorporate Google Brand Features into your own product name, service
names, trademarks, logos, or company names."

My money is on either Apple's lawyers or Google's lawyers coming up with this
policy. I know it's en vogue to jump on Google as the knight in shining armour
and Apple as the villain, but let's not jump to conclusions here.

~~~
pyre
Did you read the article though?

> _During our review of your application, we found that your application
> contains inappropriate or irrelevant platform information in the Application
> Description and/or Release Notes sections_

This seems to me more like a "Thou shalt not mention a competing platform"
rule than a "We're covering our asses from lawsuits" rule. I mean the guy was
only mentioning that he had been a finalist in Google's "Android Developer
Challenge." Are you going to tell me that Google can sue someone for trademark
infringement over that?

I could see if he was pimping another platform like, "Hey! This app is
available for Android too!" Maybe in that case Apple wouldn't want him
advertising another platform, but even that doesn't make sense. They only
people that are viewing his App's description are people that have an iPhone,
right? So why would they care about Android compatibility? It's not likely
someone would drop their iPhone and rush out to buy an Android phone over a
single App.

~~~
9oliYQjP
It seems the entire linked story was misleading. The dev mentioned the app was
a finalist in a Google Android competition. Apple didn't reject it but
suggested (whatever that means) the description be changed to remove mention
of being in the competition and I agree
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1106361>. The iPhone app port wasn't the
competitor in that competition.

~~~
pyre
But presumably it was a 1:1 port, not a 'lite' version. In which case, the
only major difference there might be would be would in the performance
department, though I'm unsure if the competition weighed that heavily.

------
simanyay
Can't wait for Apple banning apps because their developers use GMail.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Apple does have something of a weird relationship with Google at the
moment...Gmail is one of the email providers on the iPhone with "express"
setup, and they have pre-installed apps for Google Maps and Youtube. On the
other hand, Android. Seems like a perfect opportunity for MSFT.

~~~
snprbob86
To be fair, Gmail's express setup is somewhat unsanctioned. Gmail's
documentation explicitly advises against the use of that express setup button:

    
    
        What if I tap 'Gmail' instead? 
        Archiving and deleting messages will work differently. Our instructions ensure Gmail works as designed.
    

[http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answe...](http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=77702)

------
qjz
The title of the article is misleading. It's not like they rejected a game
named "Android Apocalypse." Why should they host any content that promotes
another platform?

------
Dbug
The article makes use of straw-man argument by bring up VOIP apps. But the
avoiding of mentioning a competing app seems reasonable. If there was a Zune
store I don't think any would think it appropriate for apps to mention the
iPod.

The developer can always encourage people to visit their website, and provide
more company/product history there.

------
maxmason
Apple is being stupid, it makes them look bad and does Google's job for them.

------
lsc
"I guess I'm just old-fashioned: I like to receive my content unfiltered and
make my own decisions."

then, why are you using an apple product? Part of the iphone value proposition
is that they do that filtering.

------
Que
Well can you blame Apple?.. they didn't want to have their infallible image
tarnished by having an top ADC app advertising that it was designed for a
competing platform. [/sarcasm]

Boo

------
thaumaturgy
Flagged due to headline and sensationalist content.

~~~
blhack
This really contributes a lot to the discussion, thanks.

------
chanux
My gut feeling

Google vs Apple: Whoever wins, we lose.

But about android phones, it's more freer than iPhone anyway.

------
st3fan
Hey, it is their store ... whatever they want.

~~~
pyre
Does that mean that we have to approve of what they do? I don't think that
anyone is claiming that they don't have the 'right' to do it.

------
tszming
evil

~~~
electromagnetic
vs good!

------
marshallp
i think steve jobs does these kinds of these things just to get press - it
doesn't matter if they're percieved evil or good - poeple will love him and
buy his products anyway

