SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Apple is paying close attention to the app offerings for its new watch. If your iOS app advertises support for any watch, other than the Apple Watch, prepare for trouble. Apple recently rejected an update to an established iPhone and iPad app because it mentioned support for a non-Apple Smartwatch:
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.
Additionally, Apple has established criteria for Apple Watch developers that reject applications where the primary function is to tell the time.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Apple Rejects Watch App for Description Saying 'Pebble Compatible'
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 57 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
When neither their poverty nor their honor is touched, the majority of men
live content.
-- Niccolo Machiavelli
(Score: 2) by arslan on Friday May 01 2015, @06:48AM
A publicly listed company is rejecting rackspace in its store (virtual as it may be) for a product that also mentions a competitor...
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by aristarchus on Friday May 01 2015, @06:58AM
Disruption of communications can only mean one thing: invasion or monopoly. Wait, that is two things. OK, disruption of communications by Apple can only mean one of two things: either Steve Jobs is dead, or the entire company is going down hard. Hint for the Boolean impared: it is an inclusive "or".
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @07:14AM
either Steve Jobs is dead, or the entire company is going down hard. Hint for the Boolean impared: it is an inclusive "or".
Fortunately, life is lazily evaluated and they'll never hit the second test until it's too late...
(Score: 4, Funny) by M. Baranczak on Friday May 01 2015, @01:15PM
As a famous Marxist once said: either he's dead, or my watch has stopped.
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Friday May 01 2015, @04:15PM
Being pedantic here, but in that case you shouldn't have used "either .. or".
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Friday May 01 2015, @04:20PM
Truthfully, I don't understand what you're trying to say.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday May 02 2015, @05:51AM
Sorry! Once again, sarcasm fail! All my fault, I assure you! You see, it is only one or the other, either, not both, but in fact it is an inclusive "or", so it could be both at the same time that it cannot be. Think of it as the post-mortem Jobs reality distortion field, only applied to logic. And again, mea culpa, pina colada!
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Saturday May 02 2015, @06:26PM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @07:09AM
If Microsoft were to do this everyone would get butthurt though :)
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Friday May 01 2015, @01:10PM
And for good reason.
I'm not defending Apple's actions here. In fact, it's stuff like this which makes me dislike the company (just like I dislike MS) and tell everyone who asks not to buy their products. If they weren't such control freaks this way, maybe I'd buy an iPhone, but because of the way they act, I refuse to. I never see Samsung doing stuff like this. Then again, Samsung doesn't own the Android app store; Google runs the most popular one. This is why it's bad to have a single company with too much control over anything.
Luckily, it's fairly easy to avoid buying Apple products if you despise their business practices. Macs have a rather small marketshare, and Android phones are far more popular than iPhones. Apples really are nothing more than highly overpriced luxury goods for hipsters and snobs.
MS is/was different, because they have such a huge marketshare in PC OSes; for a long time, it was mostly impossible to avoid using their products if you had a real job. It's still mostly like that; there aren't many corporate jobs where you don't get stuck with a PC running Windows (and most of those stick you with a Mac, which of course isn't any better). Luckily, MS has no real presence in mobile devices, so they just aren't a factor there. They have some (Windows Phone, Surface), but honestly I've never seen or met anyone with one of those things. They keep trying to sell them but no one's buying them. There's probably more desktop Linux users than there are MS mobile-product users.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @03:29PM
I never see Samsung doing stuff like this. Then again, Samsung doesn't own the Android app store; Google runs the most popular one. This is why it's bad to have a single company with too much control over anything.
But Samsung does load software (and crapware) on their phones (some of which cannot be deleted), as well as allow for their apps to be downloaded from their website. They don't have competitors software on their site.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday May 02 2015, @01:30AM
That's all true, but Samsung's site is by no means the dominant Android market. Google's Play store is. That's the key difference here. The vast majority of Android apps are downloaded from Google's store.
And yes, it's BS that Samsung and other makers load their phones with crapware which can't be deleted, but that's beside the point here. I'm sure there's stuff on iPhones that can't be deleted too.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday May 01 2015, @04:50PM
Kind of weird that snobs would accept Apple practicing control over their property in a walled garden way. And Apple or Google could become the unavoidables of the future.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday May 01 2015, @08:03PM
Sigh....Gates hasn't been at the company for how many years now? Frankly there is no comparison because MSFT is actually LISTENING to customers, fuck they ever fired the Ballmernator which I thought would be about as likely as Marilyn Manson becoming the POTUS whereas Apple has never listened to their customers, they have always dictated. Now some folks like that approach, which is fine, that is what free markets are for, you are free to choose which philosophy better suits you but personally I like having an OS where the users can say "we don't want that" and the company says "okay then we'll stop doing that". Ironically thanks to the $$$ being thrown around by Red hat its Linux that is adopting the Apple "take it or leave it" attitude as shown by Pulse and now systemd while MSFT of all companies is being focused on the end users, even going so far as to open .NET because the developers using it asked for it....I know, but last I checked the world hasn't started spinning the opposite direction.
But Apple? They will always be Apple, they will always tell the users (and developers) to "take it or leave it" and will always be focused on tying everything together...again if you like that approach? I'm glad it works for you, to each their own. But to acted shocked! or surprised by this is to ignore pretty much the entire history of the company that Steve built, its always been that way and it will always will and looking at their financials? It seems to work well for their demographic or they wouldn't be swimming in money like they are.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday May 02 2015, @01:37AM
I think you're completely missing my point from earlier, which is that most computer users don't have much choice when it comes to MS; they have to use it or not have a job. I can't exactly take some corporate-drone job and then say, "I'm not using Windows, the IT department needs to install and support my Linux distro of choice." Now of course, demands like that would be ridiculous with just about anything (where your desk is, where you park, etc.), but it's not like you can easily choose your job based on what OS you'll be using, whereas you *can* shop around for ones with different work environments (cubicles vs. open-plan, what part of town the office is in, whether there's an on-site cafeteria, etc.). With corporate work, you're 99.9% sure to be stuck using Windows.
So it doesn't really matter if MS listens to their customers or not. They sure don't listen to me. And if I'm a corporate worker, I'm not their customer anyway; the corporation and its IT department are.
As for Red Hat, at least there you have choices: there's lots of distros out there, and there's even a few that compete with Red Hat (namely SUSE).
Yes, Apple dictates, but they have the enviable position of having hordes of customers who actually *like* it that way. And besides, they're not a monopoly in any way. The chances of me getting a job requiring me to use a Mac are very slim, so it's not like I'll be forced to use their products.
And you're absolutely right about this behavior being the entire history of Apple. That's another reason I have zero sympathy for Apple customers.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Saturday May 02 2015, @07:24AM
So you are against the free market except when it supports YOUR personal tastes? Thanks for clearing that up.
The reason why businesses far and wide use Windows should be obvious...they have the best business tools PERIOD. Hell I can teach any 15 year old with more than 2 functioning brain cells how to set up and run a Windows SBS implementation, and tools like Outlook and Exchange have been doing exactly what the corps want them to for many years.
So if you (or anybody else) does not like it? You are free to work for another business or hell you can do like me and go out on your own, but as long as you work for somebody else you do what they say, and that includes which OS you use on company time. BTW if you want a job with an alternate OS? Look at medical, I've had to support many a doctor and help hospital IT accommodate the fact that docs? They loooove their Macbook Airs.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday May 02 2015, @08:09PM
So you are against the free market except when it supports YOUR personal tastes? Thanks for clearing that up.
It's not a "free market" when there's a monopoly, or anything close to it. In fact, this whole "free market" thing is just a canard. It isn't real. There is no such thing as a free market, and there never will be, and people who talk about "free markets" a lot are just as delusional and religious as fundamentalists.
The reason why businesses far and wide use Windows should be obvious
Yeah, it's because of inertia and because to use various MS tools, you have to have MS infrastructure. It has nothing to do with quality, it's all about lock-in and lack of competitors (which again is because of inertia; what competitors they had all died out).
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Saturday May 02 2015, @10:09PM
Oh bullshit, cry me a river. You wanna know why MSFT ended up #1? Every single victory of MSFT in the 80s and 90s can be preceded by "And then the other guy did something REALLY fucking stupid".
Apple? Fired the only guy with taste for a soda water seller that made 50 models at different price points with ZERO way for the consumer to tell better from worse, and let the OS rot. OS/2? IBM turned OS/2 into an OS as appealing as plague blankets by first trying to fuck the other OEMs with the MCA bus and then charged $200 a pop for it (that IS the OEM price BTW, no discounts to actually gain share, might cut into thinkpad sales you know) at a time when the OEMs could pick up a copy of Windows for less than $20 wholesale. BeOS? First tied their OS to a failed AT&T CPU, and THEN if that wasn't fucking stupid enough they went full retard and went with the PPC which meant they had to fight Apple for every chip (fat chance) and then when they finally saw the light and went to X86? They had blown through their budget and couldn't afford to market. BTW I can do this with Linux in the 00s too, MSFT releases Vista? Devs go "Herp derp, lets shoot ourselves in the face by releasing a half baked alpha quality Pulse and KDE 4 and if that doesn't fucking kill us we'll make it the default on every popular distro! That will piss away any momentum we gained!"
Its easy to win a battle when the enemy is a bunch of retards, you want to know why MSFT hasn't gained shit in mobile? Google and Apple under Jobs wasn't run by booger eaters, simple as that. Hell Android is buggy as fuck, Apple iOS is finicky as shit and its quality goes down with each release BUT since the companies are run by retards you don't see the kind of supergigantic fuckups that let MSFT have the time to hire guys with brains like Cutler to make really good OSes like the NT arch. BTW I am proud to state the Hairyfeet Challenge has stood now for EIGHT YEARS without a single consumer Linux distro coming even close to passing, not one. Goes to show you OSes run by people that can't get their collective shit together still exist even in 2015, they just have share so low nobody cares when they systemd themselves out of what little relevance they had left.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @08:55AM
Don't forget that part where they sold their customers cars which cannot be driven into any competing stores. Apple has created a monopoly and is now abusing it, your analogy misrepresents the situation in significant ways.
(Score: 3, Informative) by BasilBrush on Friday May 01 2015, @09:26AM
There is no monopoly as there are other smartphones and smartwatches available. And, at least as far as phones are concerned, Apple don't even have the market leading platform, let alone monopoly status.
What you mean is that Apple control certain add-ons for their products. This is not a monopoly, as a company's own product is not a market. See: Razors and blades, printers and inks/toners, consoles and games.
That's the legal side. On the practical side, Apple's customers know there is a single app store when buying the device. So they variously don't care, are happy with jailbreaks, or actually prefer the fact that there is a single low priced store for all apps. Personally I'm the latter. If the only difference between iOS and Android devices were that there was a one-stop-shop curated store for all apps on iOS and a variety of non-or poorly vetted app stores on Android, I'd buy iOS.
You, undoubtably don't even own an Apple product. People who are butt-hurt about choice of app stores have made their decision the other way. You're therefore not affected at all. Which is that final nail in the coffin of this stupid "abuse of monopoly" claim.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @10:50AM
There is no monopoly as there are other smartphones and smartwatches available. And, at least as far as phones are concerned, Apple don't even have the market leading platform, let alone monopoly status.
The point is that they have a monopoly on the Apple device software market, not that they are a monopoly on the entirety of the software market. I use monopoly in the colloquial sense, not in the much narrower legal sense. You are arguing against a strawman.
What you mean is that Apple control certain add-ons for their products.
What I mean is that Apple makes choices which negatively affect their customers for Apple's own benefit. Twist and turn it as you will, nobody but Apple themselves benefits from this particular decision.
On the practical side, Apple's customers know there is a single app store when buying the device.
You severely overestimate the technical know-how of the typical smartphone user.
On the practical side, Apple's customers know there is a single app store when buying the device. So they variously don't care, are happy with jailbreaks, or actually prefer the fact that there is a single low priced store for all apps.
That's not a valid reason against criticizing Apple. What's next, are you going to tell me that I can't criticize abusive spouses because their wife or husband says it's okay?
You, undoubtably don't even own an Apple product. People who are butt-hurt about choice of app stores have made their decision the other way.
Oh dear, attacking the person instead of the argument. How original.
You're therefore not affected at all.
As a matter of fact, it affects me in multiple ways.
Firstly, I care deeply about issues related to freedom of information and speech. I find that restrictive ecosystems have subtle, but profound effect on society, and consider such matters an important issue.
Secondly, I am a software developer and Apple's policies directly affect me and my customers.
Last, but not least, I am actually capable of feeling empathy and care about the well-being of others, regardless of weather there is any direct benefit to myself.
Which is that final nail in the coffin of this stupid "abuse of monopoly" claim.
Clearly!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Friday May 01 2015, @01:17PM
What I mean is that Apple makes choices which negatively affect their customers for Apple's own benefit. Twist and turn it as you will, nobody but Apple themselves benefits from this particular decision.
This is absolutely true. However, the other guy has a good point: Apple doesn't even have the market-leading platform any more; their numbers have been dwindling compared to Android's, last time I checked. Apple's products also carry a premium price tag, so only people with a lot of disposable income buy them.
So the question I have is: why do we care if Apple's customers are getting screwed? I personally don't really care if a bunch of spoiled rich people are being abused by their smartphone maker. They're in a position to know better before making such a purchase. Smart people have all abandoned iOS and gotten an Android phone; they're not perfect by any means, but at least the companies in the Android ecosystem aren't a bunch of crazy control freaks.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by BasilBrush on Friday May 01 2015, @04:30PM
Why does he care what happens with people that bought a different platform? Because it's like sports. He's chosen a team and he's criticise the other team no matter what. Win, lose or draw. Worse is he confuses being a fan with being morally superior.
You on the other hand are just a snob.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday May 02 2015, @01:26AM
How am I a snob? All I said is that I don't really care what happens to Apple's users. They've made their choice, now they get to live with it. What's wrong with that?
And your explanation doesn't make any sense; it appears it would apply much more to me than to him. I'm the one on Team Android (though to be fair I criticize Android a lot, but I feel it's the best of the choices available, basically the least-of-the-evils), so instead of criticizing Team Apple, I'm agreeing with the criticisms and saying "haha! that's what you get!", whereas he's basically saying that Apple shouldn't be allowed to do this and appears to be calling for some kind of government intervention because Apple's actions are, according to him, unfair to customers.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by BasilBrush on Sunday May 03 2015, @08:28PM
"a bunch of spoiled rich people" purely on the basis of what mainstream mobile phone they choose. That's why you're a snob.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Sunday May 03 2015, @09:27PM
If you buy something with a premium price tag which has all kinds of reliability problems, then I don't see how calling you a spoiled rich person is snobby at all.
(Score: 1, Troll) by BasilBrush on Saturday May 09 2015, @05:09PM
Actually you're more of a fucking imbecile than a snob.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2, Disagree) by BasilBrush on Friday May 01 2015, @04:17PM
The point is that they have a monopoly on the Apple device software market
I already covered that in the post you are replying to. If that's your point you are objectively and legally wrong. A company's own product is not a market. Otherwise every single product company would have a monopoly.
Oh dear, attacking the person instead of the argument.
So I was right. You don't own an affected device. What a surprise.
As a matter of fact, it affects me in multiple ways.
Firstly, I care deeply about issues related to freedom of information and speech. I find that restrictive ecosystems have subtle, but profound effect on society, and consider such matters an important issue.
Secondly, I am a software developer and Apple's policies directly affect me and my customers.
Last, but not least, I am actually capable of feeling empathy and care about the well-being of others, regardless of weather there is any direct benefit to myself.
What a load of bullshit. You're a whining fanboi of some other product. That is all.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @05:25PM
Please, if you are a child in body or of mind, keep off the adult's end of the internet pool mm'k?
(Score: 5, Informative) by Nollij on Friday May 01 2015, @11:55AM
It's funny you mention that. The courts ruled against Lexmark trying to do the same thing [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Friday May 01 2015, @04:08PM
You didn't read that link did you. They did no such thing.
It says
1) That circumventing Lexmark's mechanism from typing printer and ink together isn't a violation of DMCA. Well no one is saying Jailbreaking is either.
2) That Lexmark's particular advertising, for which there is no Apple parallel, was false advertising. So irrelevant.
There's nothing to say Lexmark, let alone Apple, aren't perfectly entitled to continue technical measures to tie product with accessories/consumables. Nothing whatsoever.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @05:33PM
I say so, so yes, there is something to say.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @12:23PM
What does it's listing status have to do with it?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Friday May 01 2015, @03:36PM
A publicly listed company is rejecting rackspace in its store...
You mean like Google does with the Play Store? Oh wait, they don't do that. It is in fact perfectly acceptable to promote interop between the Android world and anything else, Apple included there. Google build stuff that not only Just Works, it borgs everything else and they extend that mindset to 3rd party devels to build apps that work across and between platforms. Damn Google for their other sins, and they have plenty, but they keep the wall around their garden porous enough to assimilate everything else.
In fact Microsoft also usually embraces the idea that interop across platforms is a long term win.
No, it is just the fruit people who always act like they are the entire world and everything else is mildly illegitimate at best. And why I have never considered owning any Apple product, the realization that customers are expected to go all or nothing and thus I opt for nothing.
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Friday May 01 2015, @04:12PM
This. And I'm a Mac support monkey by day. I own several Mac computers and I love them. I bought an iPad Mini and recently gave it to my girlfriend so I could buy an ultra-budget Android tablet instead, Tesco's Hudl 2. I spent most of my time with the iPad trying to work out how to get it to play nice with my (mainly Vorbis) music library and getting video files onto it without the tedious iTunes syncing process. Those issues simply don't exist on Android. As far as Apple are concerned when it comes to using iOS, you either do everything the way they want you to and don't try to do anything they haven't sanctioned, or you might as well sod off home. Okay, VLC's internal web server syncing did help a bit, but I should still be able to just, you know, use a cable? That's not ridiculously fragile and expensive to replace?
Okay, I'm just venting now, I should stop.
(Score: 2) by arslan on Sunday May 03 2015, @10:49PM
Good for you mate, I could care less. I buy a product if it suits my needs the best. I could care less if the company flexes its capitalistic arm against a competitor. They are not waging wars, funding war lords or actively violating my personal rights. If they're running their business illegally then its for the authorities to do their job otherwise its for the market to figure it out. If you don't like the way the market operates, go be a economic philosopher and change it. Nit picking on companies is like playing the juvenile fan boy/hater card.
I own Apple products, and Androids, and MS's, and Sony's, a slew of Korean brands, etc. I don't know about your claim, but I'm nowhere near going "all or nothing".