SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
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This discussion has been archived.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.
The last time I saw him he was walking down Lover's Lane holding his own hand.
-- Fred Allen
(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.