
Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support - FreakyT
http://forums.getpebble.com/discussion/22081/apple-now-rejecting-apps-with-pebble-smartwatch-support
======
d0m
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.

~~~
rrss1122
"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."

It's nowhere near fair. It's extremely anticompetitive. This is the kind of
behavior that gets a company in trouble with the FTC.

~~~
LordKano
_This is the kind of behavior that gets a company in trouble with the FTC._

Indeed but Apple is aware that the FTC isn't likely to punish them enough that
the behavior will be a net negative.

If only the Federal Government would be as serious about "Sending a message"
on antitrust as they are about low-mid level drug dealers, this kind of thing
would be a lot more rare.

~~~
cududa
But Apple doesn't have anywhere near a monopoly on smart phones, so being
anti-competitive is completely legal

~~~
digi_owl
Monopoly is a smokescreen word. Antitrust is not about monopoly, it is about
abuse of market position.

If your company has 10% of the market, and the rest has 1% each, you can still
be slapped for antitrust if you start using that position as leverage in a
different market.

ianal, btw...

~~~
moskie
What are examples of companies being penalized for antitrust while not being a
monopoly (or part of an oligopoly)?

~~~
yellowapple
Well, there's Microsoft, which has been penalized on various occasions in the
States and the EU despite not actually being a monopoly (there were plenty of
other operating system vendors out there, Apple among them).

And then you have Google, which has been taking quite a bit of flak from
Europe lately.

~~~
moskie
I'm sorry, could you be more specific? Please link to specific cases that meet
the criteria (antitrust cases where the company is found guilty of anti-
competitive practices that do NOT involve the company abusing their
(mon|olig)opoly power in a certain market). Both those companies are involved
in many cases, antitrust or otherwise, and I'm unable to find one that fits
the bill. I think you (and digi_owl) are incorrect.

~~~
yellowapple
Neither of them were or are actually monopolies (Google isn't the only search
engine in the world, and Microsoft wasn't the only PC operating system vendor
in the world even during the 90's), so literally any of the cases you've found
would be applicable.

An antitrust case can still be levied for _conspiring_ to become a monopoly
(as Microsoft did with its strongarming of OEMs combined and its bundling of
Internet Explorer with Windows). Apple has even run afoul of that at various
times (like when it got dinged for its monopolistic behavior regarding
e-books; it certainly didn't have an actual monopoly, but that still fell
under antitrust regulations).

~~~
moskie
> Neither of them were or are actually monopolies

"Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5,
1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the x86-based personal
computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly"
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.#Judgment)

A company does not have to be the sole supplier in a market to be considered a
monopoly in the eyes of the law.

> Apple has even run afoul of that at various times (like when it got dinged
> for its monopolistic behavior regarding e-books; it certainly didn't have an
> actual monopoly, but that still fell under antitrust regulations).

But that case didn't just involve Apple. It also involved the oligopoly of
book publishers, who worked with Apple to engage in price fixing against
Amazon.

~~~
yellowapple
That still leaves us with Google, which (as far as I know) is not considered a
"monopoly" by any measure of the term.

With that said...

> Microsoft's dominance of the x86-based personal computer operating systems
> market constituted a monopoly

If you read further in the paragraph you quoted, you'll find that Microsoft
was specifically engaging in _monopolization_ (i.e. the process of _becoming_
a monopoly), which was the specific reason why it got dinged. It also states
the _and_ in there - that they had taken measures to disrupt attempts to
counter their monopolization.

This analysis is consistent with the Sherman Antitrust Act (the law under
which Microsoft was cited), specifically Section 2: Every person who shall
monopolize, __or attempt to monopolize __, or combine or conspire with any
other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among
the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a
felony [. . . ] ". It's also consisted with the Sherman Antitrust Act's
intent, as specified by its authors (George Hoar: "... [a person] who merely
by superior skill and intelligence...got the whole business because nobody
could do it as well as he could was not a monopolist..(but was if) it involved
something like the use of means which made it impossible for other persons to
engage in fair competition.").

This isn't even mentioning the failure of the court to recognize that there
were viable altneratives to Windows that, in their words, "a significant
percentage of consumers world-wide could substitute for Intel-compatible PC
operating systems without incurring substantial costs". GNU/Linux (which was
designed for "Intel-compatible PC"s to begin with), three of the four
mainstream BSDs (NetBSD, FreeBSD, and OpenBSD), OS/2, and a variety of other
operating systems existed at the time of that ruling. The only way the
ruling's rationale would hold true is if they interpreted "Intel-compatible"
to mean "Windows-compatible", in which case the ruling is directly applicable
to Apple's behavior now (since Apple - like Microsoft then - is attempting to
monopolize the application ecosystem of iOS; if Microsoft can get dinged for
monopolizing a specific market segment, then so can/should Apple). In this
case, Apple is "attempt[ing] to monopolize" smart watches within the the iOS
application market (just like how Microsoft "attempt[ed] to monopolize"
browsers within the Windows application market). The difference is that
Apple's attempts are much more obvious.

Disclaimer: IANAL.

~~~
moskie
Sorry buddy, you've gone off the deep end here. Microsoft was found in a court
of law to have a monopoly in the OS market, and used their market power
illegally. Full stop. This is not a controversial fact. You are at best
mincing words, and at worst misrepresenting history, to suggest something
different.

> That still leaves us with Google, which (as far as I know) is not considered
> a "monopoly" by any measure of the term.

I don't know how you've come to this conclusion. It is very reasonable to
argue that Google has a monopoly on internet search. Whether they are engaging
in antitrust is more unclear, but they wield an amount of power in the search
market that no other company even gets close to.

------
zak_mc_kracken
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
Nowhere near...

~~~
random28345
> 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
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
> 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.

~~~
zak_mc_kracken
> Apple now has enough market share, especially in mobile

Not really. Depending on the country, the iPhone has between 10 and 20% market
share and they are shrinking month after month. Android is on its way to
becoming a monopoly, for sure.

~~~
pdkl95
This story isn't about the "mobile smartphone" market - it is about Apple
abusing their control of those phones to restrict the "iOS Apps" market.

These are separate markets. Customers that want to buy software for their
Apple-branded general purpose computers cannot buy Android apps, so there is
no overlap between the markets. Software developers may choose to participate
in both, but that means the have to create two separate products.

What matters is is if the customer can switch their business, and not the size
of the respective markets which is what those iPhone market share numbers
indicate.

------
toxican
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.

~~~
mikeash
"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
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
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
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?"

~~~
s73v3r
"Yeah, but when you don't think you're actually breaking the rules, "you never
did anything about that guy" is good support."

No, it isn't. The other guy is irrelevant; the fact of the matter is, YOU
broke the rules.

~~~
jasonlotito
Every app literally breaks the rules. I do not know of one that doesn't.

------
fredley
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/i...](https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/runkeeper-gps-running-
walk/id300235330?mt=8)

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
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/#met...](https://developer.apple.com/app-
store/review/guidelines/#metadata)

~~~
clarky07
Except Pebble isn't another mobile platform. It is an accessory.

~~~
brlewis
Pebble has apps: [http://www.wareable.com/apps/the-best-apps-for-pebble-and-
pe...](http://www.wareable.com/apps/the-best-apps-for-pebble-and-pebble-steel)

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
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.

------
mikecmpbll
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.

------
robgibbons
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.

------
Someone1234
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.

~~~
JohnTHaller
This is the whole reason the site itself doesn't direct you to https or
advertise it is available. In order to support https, you don't just install a
cert, you know. You have to make sure your whole chain supports it. Including
things like third party CDN providers, which can be more expensive to enable
https than you pay for the CDN. So, if you use an extension that randomly
directs you to connect using a method the site operator never told you to use,
expect problems.

~~~
Someone1234
> This is the whole reason the site itself doesn't direct you to https or
> advertise it is available.

They are advertising it. They have a web-server running on 443 open to the
public, they aren't required to, but they choose to. They're also erroneously
returning status code 200 (instead of 404 or 301).

> So, if you use an extension that randomly directs you to connect using a
> method the site operator never told you to use, expect problems.

Nothing "random" about it.

The site advertises that it has HTTP running on 80 and HTTPS on 443. So I have
an extension which opts for 443 when status code 200 is returned as a first
priority and then 80 as a backup. Google and Bing's search results do exactly
the same thing.

If they don't want people to use HTTPS/443 then simply shut it down, problem
solved. If you have to have 443 running for another site then return status
code 404 (or 301).

~~~
X-Cubed
There is no reason that HTTP and HTTPS ports have to serve the same website.
In this case, the HTTPS port is serving pebble.vanillaforums.com (or whatever)
while the HTTP port is serving forums.getpebble.com.

The HTTPS port could just as easily be serving up an admin page for the
forums, rather than the forums themselves.

------
JohnTHaller
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
Can you provide links to other cases where Apple has been restrictive about
this?

~~~
JohnTHaller
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.

------
hellbanner
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.

------
fmsf
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
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
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
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
The EU stuck it to MS over the browser bundling.

------
sesteel
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.

~~~
loumf
Should Walmart, who has 100% market share of people walking in a Walmart right
now, have control over what is on their shelves?

Should Disney have control over what stores are on Disney Main St.?

iPhones are not the only choice, so if you don't like how they work, you can
choose not to buy them (because they have significant competition).

The reason there are laws that limit monopoly behavior is because you wouldn't
have that choice and it is considered a free-market failure that we want
regulated.

~~~
Aushin
I don't think this holds up. WalMart choosing not to stock a product doesn't
mean that the product _won 't be made at all_. WalMart doesn't decide to stop
stocking Hanes underwear because Hanes ships boxers to KMart and Target too.

Now maybe in some cases WalMart does demand exclusive right to sell something.
But imagine they did it for EVERY. FUCKING. PRODUCT. I think people would get
pretty pissed off. And rightfully so.

~~~
snowwrestler
How does Apple demand the exclusive right to sell anything? There are plenty
of Android apps that integrate with Pebble, and plenty of apps that are
available across iOS, Android, even Windows, Blackberry, FireFox OS, Cyanogen,
etc.

Apple can set rules for apps in _their app store_ , just like Walmart can
control the stock on _their shelves._ Walmart doesn't carry what you want? Go
to Target. Apple doesn't allow an app you want? Go to Android.

~~~
pests
I always hear that the choice you present is what allows anti-competitive
behavior.

But does that hold true even when the costs of switching is enormously high?

With Target/WalMart you don't have to re-buy a $650 phone to switch. You don't
need to (maybe) switch carriers depending on needs or offers with all the
hassle and fees that might entail.

You might have to re-learn an entirely new OS. How much time does that cost
someone in lost productivity or just time in life?

------
fomojola
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.

------
berkay
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
Yep. Same if you mention in your app that it's also available on Android.

Fascist? Yes. Surprising? No. New? Certainly not.

~~~
mikeash
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.

------
slackstation
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
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
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.

------
canistr
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
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
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.

------
christop
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).

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

------
mrsteveman1
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.

------
BringTheTanks
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
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).

------
TheLoneWolfling
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.

------
lostgame
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
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.

------
uberlux
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
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.

------
perfectstorm
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.

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

------
MrZongle2
Think different. Or else.

~~~
yellowapple
More like:

Think different _.

_ As long as it's not different from us

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

------
s73v3r
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
Title isn't misleading. So you can support the Pebble Smartwatch, you just
can't tell anyone about it?

~~~
s73v3r
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.

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

------
michel-slm
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.

------
ommunist
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.

~~~
s73v3r
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.

------
chucksmart
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?

~~~
xsmasher
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.

------
pasta_2
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
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.

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

------
minikites
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
> 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.

------
philip1209
I'm getting an SSL certificate error - the site is presenting a cert for
*.vanillaforums.com.

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

------
k-mcgrady
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
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
Which looks like evidence about the anti-competitive nature of Apple's
actions.

------
MrPatan
Hilarious. Serves them right for thinking too different.

------
RexRollman
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.

------
peter303
Apple is evil.

------
ohjesusthatguy1
"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/id...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/seanav-us-nautical-
charts/id632635827?ls=1&mt=8) 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.ap...](https://web.archive.org/web/20140214043815/https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/seanav-
us-nautical-charts/id632635827?ls=1&mt=8)

It's just being rejected this time. And why is this surprising behavior from
Apple?

------
ohjesusthatguy1
[https://web.archive.org/web/20140214043815/https://itunes.ap...](https://web.archive.org/web/20140214043815/https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/seanav-
us-nautical-charts/id632635827?ls=1&mt=8)

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.

------
vivaldifan
Clear your way! Apple Watch is coming!

------
tjwebbusa
Surely no one's actually surprised by this?

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

------
nebulous1
Until this happens again I would suspect this is just a mistake by whoever
reviewed the app for Apple.

~~~
andrewla
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_VNJ4PKqybr62...](https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1eOuyVQ4_VNJ4PKqybr62C4aTFbmVNLVbotHXG16Uf1Q/pub)

~~~
nebulous1
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.

------
JacobEdelman
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.

------
talles
> 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/#met...](https://developer.apple.com/app-
store/review/guidelines/#metadata)

------
ebbv
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
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
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
> 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.

~~~
ebbv
We only differ on whether Apple should be compelled to host content it doesn't
want to. I would say no, but it should be compelled to allow iPhone owners to
modify their devices and install third party software.

~~~
jdmichal
I actually haven't stated a position on _solutions_ , only that IMO the
current state opens them up to liability. I think allowing for applications to
be side-loaded would be a fine solution.

------
bobjordan
"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.

------
alanscarpa
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.

~~~
xtrumanx
> Apple doesn't want you using their app store in a way that could be
> promoting their competition.

That just seems really messed up. Considering it may not seem so bad since
Apple isn't really that diverse but imagine if Google did the same thing at
the Play Store. No mention of any other search engines, ad networks, email
providers, phones, internet providers, home automation, etc. Pretty sure
people would find that unacceptable.

~~~
pjc50
Imagine if Google did the same thing in _search_.

~~~
anaptdemise
> In a lengthy investigation, staffers in the FTC’s bureau of competition
> found evidence that Google boosted its own services for shopping, travel and
> local businesses by altering its ranking criteria and “scraping” content
> from other sites. It also deliberately demoted rivals.

[http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-google-skewed-search-
results...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-google-skewed-search-
results-1426793553)

> But at a press conference at the FTC's headquarters, Chairman Jon Leibowitz
> said that after an "exhaustive" investigation, the commission found there
> was not enough evidence to conclude Google's search results violate fair-
> competition laws.

[http://thehill.com/policy/technology/275429-google-dodges-
fe...](http://thehill.com/policy/technology/275429-google-dodges-federal-
antitrust-lawsuit)

------
yoda_sl
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

~~~
Someone1234
You seem to be suggesting that this isn't wrong just because a rule exists.
That position is predicated on the assumption that the rules themselves cannot
be wrong. It is essentially circular logic to try and avoid discussing the
topic at all, and the fact you are arguing that "It shouldn't even made it in
the top HN stories IMHO" is quite evident of that belief.

An explanation of the rule doesn't really justify Apple's actions in this
case, or how this rule has been applied before and after Apple had a
competitive product in this specific space. Overall I think Apple's actions
are very anticompetitive (maybe not illegally so, but we can still
judge/criticise them).

All in all Apple wants to make it harder to find a competitor's product on
their store. So they're actually willing to hurt their customer's usability if
it means also hurting a competitor's market share. Really shows what their
priorities are.

PS - I'd criticise Google or Microsoft for exactly the same thing.

~~~
zamalek
> I'd criticise Google or Microsoft for exactly the same thing.

Microsoft was _litigated_ for less. Imagine the uproar arising from "you can't
install a browser on Windows if it mentions another OS."

I think it would be fair if they could require that you mention Apple's
products alongside competing products ("Supports Pebble and iWatch"). That way
I could browse the store for apps supporting my device, without Apple losing
business to their own store. I think that's far too much to expect from this
anti-competitive behemoth.

------
epaga
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
It's still a rule worth discussing. I hardly think this deserves to be
flagged.

~~~
epaga
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
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?

