The demise of a mobile app, Apple cult-style

[Darkseider]

Yes they can. It's not an anticompetitive practice unless is substantially reduces competition. If sears were the only company that sold tools, then yes it would we be an unfair advantage. Fortunately I can go to walmart, lowes, or home depot if I wanted and buy those same tools. This company can develop it's Android News app for the android platform, blackberry, nokia, or WP7. Furthermore, apple isn't providing any android only news apps, nor is it providing one that the company personally maintains. So in the case of the market for android news apps on the iPhone, that market doesn't exist. You can't have anticompetitive practices in a market that doesn't exist.

I said "stay with me" in that post, but I guess I lost you at "assume Sears is the only distributor of tools on the East Coast". It was a hypothetical to illustrate a point.

This app competes with other news apps, such as Engadget among others, that are allowed in the app store. The Iphone user base represents a huge share of the smartphone market, so in that regard the developer is, in fact, arguably harmed by the arbitrary exclusion. Unintended consequence or not, whether Apple profits or not, doesn't change the fact that the action can cause economic harm. In the Netscape case, MS didn't even block it they just gave their own IE a much more favorable position and that was enough for the DOJ to balk at.

Again, the FCC smelled a rat when Apple tried to block Google Voice. I don't know what could be clearer in the message sent there. Apple is the gate keeper to a market which all developers/companies should be free to access. It's precisely this sort of conflict of interest when companies use that market power in anti-competitive ways that causes harm to other companies that leads to sanctions and break-ups of companies.

Apple anti-competitive? No. You mean the whole you can't use 3rd party environments to develop and cross compile apps? Ooh wait that was squashed quickly when the DOJ got involved.

 

[kodiak799]

Apple anti-competitive? No. You mean the whole you can't use 3rd party environments to develop and cross compile apps? Ooh wait that was squashed quickly when the DOJ got involved.

LOL....Someone needs to tell the DOJ that Apple is a "private" company and can do whatever it wants.

 

[czerdrill]

I for one think its hilarious watching the two fanboys pat each other on the back

 

[kodiak799]

Being critical of Apple's policies and practices and discussing whether they are stepping over the very fine line between good (and fair) business practice clearly eludes people with little to no basic understanding of fundamental business and regulatory concepts.

 

[czerdrill]

turning a blind eye to every other company in the galaxy doing the exact same type of "censoring" that apple is doing and claiming that apple is a cult, is fanboyism.

 

[pyro6128]

Being critical of Apple's policies and practices and discussing whether they are stepping over the very fine line between good (and fair) business practice clearly eludes people with little to no basic understanding of fundamental business and regulatory concepts.

Wow, im sure theres a kettle somewhere close by that you're dying to have a conversation with right now.

 

[Martin030908]

... Google just needs to ban anything Apple related.... provide ZERO search results for Apple products and information in their search engine.... see how Apple feels about it then.

business is business, stop helping the competitors

 

[Bob Dammit]

Yes they can. It's not an anticompetitive practice unless is substantially reduces competition. If sears were the only company that sold tools, then yes it would we be an unfair advantage. Fortunately I can go to walmart, lowes, or home depot if I wanted and buy those same tools. This company can develop it's Android News app for the android platform, blackberry, nokia, or WP7. Furthermore, apple isn't providing any android only news apps, nor is it providing one that the company personally maintains. So in the case of the market for android news apps on the iPhone, that market doesn't exist. You can't have anticompetitive practices in a market that doesn't exist.

I said "stay with me" in that post, but I guess I lost you at "assume Sears is the only distributor of tools on the East Coast". It was a hypothetical to illustrate a point.

This app competes with other news apps, such as Engadget among others, that are allowed in the app store. The Iphone user base represents a huge share of the smartphone market, so in that regard the developer is, in fact, arguably harmed by the arbitrary exclusion. Unintended consequence or not, whether Apple profits or not, doesn't change the fact that the action can cause economic harm. In the Netscape case, MS didn't even block it they just gave their own IE a much more favorable position and that was enough for the DOJ to balk at.

Again, the FCC smelled a rat when Apple tried to block Google Voice. I don't know what could be clearer in the message sent there. Apple is the gate keeper to a market which all developers/companies should be free to access. It's precisely this sort of conflict of interest when companies use that market power in anti-competitive ways that causes harm to other companies that leads to sanctions and break-ups of companies.

To tke this one step further, and hopefully back into a non-hypothetical situation, Follow this. You are looking for a clothes washer, and head down to Sears. Sears owns the Kenmore brand (their widget). You can also but washers (widgets) from Samsung, LG, Whirlpool, Electrolux, Maytag, GE, Bosch, Frigidaire, etc. Wait, Frigidaire makes washers? Ok, back to the discussion. Why then in this hypothetical situation would Sears allow competitors to sell their widgets in their sotre, and compete with their brand (Kenmore)?
One word answer:
MONEY!!!
Sears is getting a cut of every "widget" sold in their store. It is in their best interest to sell all kinds of widgets that people are willing to buy. So then why would Apple (who gets a cut of every App sold in the market and the "publishing fee) arbitrarily deny a stream of revenue from their store?

 

[pyro6128]

who's to say its a paid app?

 

[czerdrill]

Apple's moves are scrutinized by everybody and everyone. No matter how minor of a thing they do (for example banning an unknown, unheard of Android magazine, that would have no impact on anything anywhere), they get a 13 page thread dedicated to their "cult-like" cutting down of Android. It's silly. Apple is the company to beat, not Google. I know the fanboys are probably getting primed to hit reply and start typing furiously since I said that, but it's true. It becomes more and more obvious when everything Apple does is nitpicked to the point of nausea.

Google has cases of censorship in its history and has received plenty of criticism for those cases. Yet, I've never once seen Google referred to as a cult. Again, it's silly.

Like I said before when Apple does it they're a cult, when Google does it they're "open source, yeaaaaahhh!!!"

When someone likes an iPhone they're a fanboy, when someone likes an android phone they're a "educated consumer who made the smart decision!!!!!!!"

These arguments amount to one thing...fanboyism. That's all it is. Choosing not to include an app in your store is not censorship. And the fact that Apple is publicly traded has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they have their own rules and regulations and policies. No joe off the street can go to apple and change their policies because they have a stock symbol.

It's hilarious that the fanboy keeps saying that like he's some kind of genius who has inside information and has shocked the entire community about Apple's public trading status or something. We know it's publicly traded. That has nothing to do with their app rejection policies. Trying to correlate the two is odd. I've already shown you their policy (the policy that you couldn't provide but was apparently "crystal clear!!")...you were wrong.

they can reject an app for any reason whatsoever, and if you sign on to be a developer you know that. their app store has been in business for years and years and no one has challenged that policy, because there's nothing to challenge. you can't go to a company and force them to sell/promote/distribute your product. the policy isn't going to change, and apple will continue to ban apps that they deem. two fanboys on an android forum are not going to forge changes in apple's app review policy.

 

[etx_droid]

 

[Darkseider]

Apple is not the company to beat. They are killing themselves off quite well without the need of an external beat down. By this time next year they will be second fiddle to Android. The reason is not only the open source roots of Android but the constantly evolving and changing hardware it runs on. The choice of carrier, phone, OS (UI for the most part) and now even entry price is what is driving Android onwards and upwards and will continue to do so for a LONG time. History is repeating itself by Apple making bad business moves. First with the squashing of Mac clones and the near demise of the company. Now with the policies they put in place on their app store and iDevices.

 

[kodiak799]

One word answer:
MONEY!!!
Sears is getting a cut of every "widget" sold in their store. It is in their best interest to sell all kinds of widgets that people are willing to buy. So then why would Apple (who gets a cut of every App sold in the market and the "publishing fee) arbitrarily deny a stream of revenue from their store?

Ding ding ding! If you pay NBC enough, they'll advertise a Fox show, but why would Fox waste that money when most people watch at least one show on their network and they can advertise for free?

It's all an economical decision. If Sears can make more money off selling Whirlpool and GE washers than it loses in sales from its Kenmore brand they're going to do it.

Again, I suspect there is a far less sinister reason this app wasn't approved. But for people with basic business sense it could be an interesting debate because there are numerous examples of Apple, MS and other companies crossing the line of fair business practice. Mobile phones and the internet continue to change the way business is done, and issues such as this one present interesting questions.

 

[kodiak799]

History is repeating itself by Apple making bad business moves.

I can't agree with that. I think Apple is more than content to put a strangehold on that segment it can overcharge for equivalent hardware because of the brand. That's where the big margins are. No different than what they do with the Mac - they keep the profitable OS piece of revenues and also get a brand premium on the hardware. The lionshare of profits in the "PC" business go to the OS and CPU. I think the cell business is quickly heading the same direction and there's no indication (or reason, really) that Apple is going to do anything differently than with the Mac. The main difference is there isn't a huge installed MS base and so Apple can hang on to a much larger OS share.

 

[czerdrill]

Apple is not the company to beat. They are killing themselves off quite well without the need of an external beat down. By this time next year they will be second fiddle to Android. The reason is not only the open source roots of Android but the constantly evolving and changing hardware it runs on. The choice of carrier, phone, OS (UI for the most part) and now even entry price is what is driving Android onwards and upwards and will continue to do so for a LONG time. History is repeating itself by Apple making bad business moves. First with the squashing of Mac clones and the near demise of the company. Now with the policies they put in place on their app store and iDevices.

when banning an obscure app that has no effect on anything causes an entire community to label you a cult, trust me, youre the company to beat.