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.
"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.
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.
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!".
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?"
Every app violates the word of at least one of those rules. So the only thing you can do is interpret it the best way you can, and that interpretation is guided by what you see being approved.
Isn't that kind of the point. I had 4 apps with Pebble support (and noted in the description) approved in the last week, along with countless others as mentioned. This is more likely to be the bad/unlucky review than all the others.
While it is another example of a bad review, it's not necessarily an example of a ridiculous new practice by Apple. Maybe it is maybe it isn't, but 1 app is far from proof.
You're right, but this is more or less what I was trying to address with the last part of my comment.
Yes, this is far from proof. But Apple has done stuff like this constantly since the iPhone SDK was first released. At some point, it becomes reasonable to stop giving them the benefit of the doubt, and assume that there's a good chance something bad is going on, just like the last thousand times.
If they roll it back, great! I imagine being called to task for a stupid decision will help make that happen.
Do we know how the app approval process works internally?
I've never been involved with iOS, but from the various articles I've read, it sounds like there is a large team involved with approvals, their process is largely manual, their internal documentation is lacking, and they're probably missing simple things like checklists.
For an example of something similar: when one of these rejection snafus ends up making a public spectacle to the point where Apple wants to work directly with the app developer, they will do so exclusively over the phone rather than in a more sane fashion like e-mail, so that the details can't be so easily recorded and spread around.
It does belong because the claim is that Apple is actively denying apps that support Pebble (which is not true). If Apple were doing that, they'd have taken down the official Pebble app entirely. You're muddying the entire discussion bringing in the consistency of Apple's enforcement of rules or how fair the rules are. None of that matters in this discussion.
What matters is that some dev made a wild claim that Apple is actively denying Pebble apps for being Pebble apps, when in fact they just failed to follow the rules. That's all there is to this. That this story is as popular as it is is ridiculous. The headline is clickbaity as hell and just outright false.
The whole point of my post is that if Apple were actively denying apps that support Pebble they would not necessarily have taken down the official Pebble app, because that sort of inconsistency is exactly how they operate.
They can and do say "All apps that do X are forbidden" while not taking down some apps that clearly do X.
But when an app is the official embodiment of X, you'd really expect that to go first. If Apple were actively trying to get rid of Pebble-friendly apps, I would think the main/official Pebble app would be first to go.
None of this really matters though because the title/claim are still bogus.
Apple does not move quickly, or consistently, or sanely. The continued presence of the official Pebble app on the store is completely consistent with a new Apple policy of prohibiting apps that talk about Pebble. Apple often starts by simply rejecting updates, and the Pebble app hasn't been updated since February. When Apple does start going after existing app versions, it often takes weeks or months. For example, there were several stories from the past fall about apps that came up with novel uses for the new Today screen in iOS 8, submitted, got accepted, were in the store for a month or two, then were suddenly given the choice of removing the feature or being yanked because it turns out that they were going against the arbitrary rules about what you're allowed to do in a Today widget.
Given that the issues with Pebble-related apps cropped up when trying to publish app updates, it's possible that Pebble itself just hasn't pushed an update yet, and thus hasn't hit this obstacle yet.
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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?
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).
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.
>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.
Don't they have long history of doing exactly that?
Twitter's stance of shutting down apps that get too many subscribers definitely looks bad to me - although it's a little different in that no money changes hands.
I'll agree they're not a monopoly, but they're being highly anti-competetive, to a point that a legal remedy might actually be successful should the FTC or DOJ push it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)).
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.
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.
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).
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%
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).
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.
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.
> 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.