Apple now rejecting apps with Pebble Smartwatch support
-
@IRJ said:
No, but if you have a pebble watch, you wouldn't even know that app supported it. That should be the kind of thing in the release notes about an app. I don't see how it would cause sales to drop with Apple watches.
They could have those release notes elsewhere, I assume, however.
-
Isn't this anti-competitive behavior? Why isn't apple being sued for monopolistic behaviors?
-
@Dashrender said:
Isn't this anti-competitive behavior? Why isn't apple being sued for monopolistic behaviors?
^ agreed 100%
-
@MattSpeller said:
@Dashrender said:
Isn't this anti-competitive behavior? Why isn't apple being sued for monopolistic behaviors?
^ agreed 100%
It just goes to show that Apple is much worse now than Microsoft ever was.
-
@IRJ said:
It just goes to show that Apple is much worse now than Microsoft ever was.
Whoa, I don't know if I'd go that far yet. M$ did some really sketchy crap in the old days.
We agree they're going in the wrong direction
-
@Dashrender said:
Isn't this anti-competitive behavior? Why isn't apple being sued for monopolistic behaviors?
Because we've heard nothing of them blocking the competition, only that they are not allowing competitors to be mentioned specifically in their own store.
Also, Apple is not the market leader so antitrust cannot apply to them. How could they be monopolistic if they don't have the top selling product on the market, let alone the effect only one?
-
@MattSpeller said:
@Dashrender said:
Isn't this anti-competitive behavior? Why isn't apple being sued for monopolistic behaviors?
^ agreed 100%
Anticompetitive is completely legal. Monopolistic is not. They two are not the same thing.
-
@IRJ said:
@MattSpeller said:
@Dashrender said:
Isn't this anti-competitive behavior? Why isn't apple being sued for monopolistic behaviors?
^ agreed 100%
It just goes to show that Apple is much worse now than Microsoft ever was.
Microsoft HAD a monopoly (legally speaking, at least.) Apple never has. It's an interesting response to the situation to feel that the one that was determined to be a monopoly AND to be noncompetitive never was as bad as the one that is not, and never has been, a monopoly.
I agree it is shady and crappy, but the jump to monopoly or antitrust feelings is huge. Lots of small players do this every day and we'd never think twice about it.
-
@MattSpeller said:
@IRJ said:
It just goes to show that Apple is much worse now than Microsoft ever was.
Whoa, I don't know if I'd go that far yet. M$ did some really sketchy crap in the old days.
We agree they're going in the wrong direction
Exactly, and I don't feel like Microsoft was ever that bad, just crossed some lines. I'm sure that Microsoft was surprised that they were considered a monopoly and that standard anticompetitive things (like not bundling competitor's products or promoting your own) was going to get them into trouble.
-
While Apple might be non-competitive, that's a normal and completely legal and acceptable business practice. There is no law nor any standard code of ethics that says that you need to promote your competitor's products. There are good reasons to sometimes do so, but that's very different.
Remember that both Microsoft and Google actually have or have had near monopolies in some sectors while Apple never has.
