This pretty much sums the issue up, and Apple's decision was brutal because this company invested significant resources into its App. The app was on the store since 2008, the company has 45 employees, and over 20 million people downloaded the app.
It is not like the devolper can just take his iOs app and go else place.
Moreover, Apple's rules aren't always clear, are subject to change, and enforced arbitrarily.
Further, as a person who has bought iPhones and iPads I dislike being told what I can download.
There are many dealerships. One apple.
If apple rejects your app you cannot sell it anywhere else.
Good grief; this world is full of frickin' pansies!!!
No one forces you to buy an Apple iOS device, nor do they force you to keep it. Unwad your panties, sell the iOS device and go buy something else. Simple...
So you claim that no Android customers have bought apps?
Get real.
and why is this a problem? MS isn't the only OS vendor and was punished and forced to open up more by the EU.
Also, AppGratis is produced by a French company... hence it makes sense the company seeks for help at all levels and well... there are many, France and EU...
Maybe you would like to know that Apple operates under EU law when selling anything in the EU
and why is this a problem? MS isn't the only OS vendor and was punished and forced to open up more by the EU.
But they hold 100 percent of the iphone market. Im glad the EU will stop Apples terrible behaviour.
The EU rules the EU and Apple does not. If they want to sell their product in the EU, they have to comply with local laws and rules.
But your product doesn't have to be an Apple product? or Apple exclusive does it?
It is a widely recognized legal principle that "natural" monopolies, like Apple being the only maker of Apple products, Ford being the only maker of Ford cars, Disney's monopoly on Mickey Mouse, don't count as monopolies as far as anti-competition laws are concerned. What counts is Apple's market share for example in the phone market, and just a week or two ago we were told that Apple is losing out in France because French people are too tight to buy expensive phones.
This should be interesting
I wonder how loosely the EU interpret anti-monopoly law.
(snip)
IMO, the reason it's a big issue is because the mobile/laptop/desktop software segments are too crucial for one company to hold too much power. Monopolies in console platforms etc. just don't have the same impact outside that segment, which is why they're more tolerated.
Perhaps AppGratis isn't a viable business on other platforms?
Prices of in app purchases would never have any competition though. Because it's the only developer.It harms the public by pushing up prices - for example Apple's charges for in-app purchases are completely unjustifiable in many cases and undercut by 9/10ths by their competitors, the savings from which could be passed on to consumers.
But Apple bans those competing payment platforms.
Last time I checked, it was Apples' App Store. They own it, they curate it. What is there to examine?
Whenever I see the EU and Apple in a story I feel compelled to see if the source is The Onion.
Americans may be fine with corporations doing what they like, but in the rest of the world there are meaningful laws and anybody living or doing business in that country must abide by them.
I'm not saying Apple did break the law; in fact I largely agree with how Apple police the AppStore and wish they would be even more active. That said, even while doing so Apple must make sure they are on the right side of the law and if any affected party believes otherwise they absolutely have the right to a review; how dare you suggest otherwise!
This. AppGratis supposedly just closed a multi-million dollar seed funding round. Now the company has effectively been shut down by Apple.
It is not in the public interest for Apple to have that amount of power over other businesses. Only the law should have that power.
Read the developers account of what happened and why it was pulled. I would hope you don't feel Apple is justified for their actions after you read it.
Small portion of his post.
"Friday, April 5th was the day Apple decided to pull AppGratis out of the App Store, leaving our 12 million iOS users wondering where one of their favorite apps had gone, my 45 employees wondering if theyd still have a job next week, my partners and investors in shock, and myself with an absolutely crazy situation to deal with, thousands of miles away from our headquarters."
Simon Dawlat, CEO at AppGratis
http://appgratis.com/blog/2013/04/09/appgratis-pulled-from-the-app-store-heres-the-full-story/
Then a better analogy might be a train operator that has control over all the tracks. This is frequently the case in many locations around the world. If that train operator decides that it will no longer purchase a particular type of railcar, engine, etc then it has shut that company out of the market, just as Apple has done with AppGratis. What would the consequence be for the train operator? The railcar(or whatever) manufacturer built its business model around being able to operate on the tracks owned by the operator.
I realize that this analogy is not perfect either. Here the train operator is buying the goods; whereas, Apple is not buying the apps.
I'm pro-Apple but threads like these are embarrassing when I see unabashed fanboys that'll defend anything Apple does or defend it from *any* criticism even when it's legit. I saw this back when iFixit criticized them for the low reparability of their products... oh, the amount of venom that was thrown at iFixit such as being evil and profiteering just made me cringe. Kinda reminds me of gun fanatics for some reason in gun threads.
And can someone care to explain the rule about apps not being allowed to advertise other apps? I see it all the time in tons of apps so I don't understand why it's being enforced here.
In any case, this was wrong on Apple's part. Their desire for control goes too far sometimes and the negative backlash will hurt them in the eyes of consumers.
In this case the developer was in violation from day 1.Yes, I agree, with how things are now - the rejections and removals from the App store are low enough in number and reasonable enough in nature (with the odd weird exception) that it's worth the risk - but it's still something that Apple needs to be aware of. I'm sure they are.
The other part of the risk from over-zealous crackdowns on rules etc is that apps that require larger investment will taper off and we'll just be left with lower risk apps that have lower development budgets, even if they are still on iOS for the sales.
iOS devices are computers, not game consoles IMO
----------
So then why was MS subject to persecution? If we're playing in MS' sandbox, why shouldn't we be forced into Internet Explorer? Anyone that had a problem with IE could have just bought a Mac.
The best analogy is the EU case vs MS.
And Sony doesn't have 100% of the video game disk distorbution, nor Microsoft, nor Nintendo. App distribution is not a market.
I will point out that Amazon tried to have 100% control of App distorbution on the Kindle Fire. If they had locked down side loading better they may have gotten away with it too. Apple's just better a fighting Jailbreaks/Rooting then Amazon.
If you want to go after Apple over something it really should be Jailbreaking and the devices owners choice of what they can do with the hardware they own, especially if they chose to void any warrantee or liability of the manufacturer.
=====
Here is another one. The "Ring tone" market. Before the iPhone who controlled that. Was it an 'open' market or was it curated and locked down by device/service providers. Apps are the same deal today, only it's not the carriers, it's the device and the device OS makers. Google has just been 'free' with how people can put 'ringtones' (Apps) on devices using their OS, and many devices makers have gone along with that... with some exceptions (see Amazon). If side loading 'ringtones' is a feature you want or you are 'ringtone' maker who doesn't want to have to deal with the rules of a particular 'carrier', you find a different 'carrier' to work with.
But Sony don't actively monitor every game or piece of software made for the device and restrict it to one store. Locking down the hardware is different, lots of people do this (I am not saying if this is right or wrong).
I think the issue is thus: If I am buying a game for a PC for example and one store does not stock a game because they don't think its suitable its ok I just go to another store. On iOS I can't do that as there is only one store. Its whether people believe this is right and does a company like Apple have the right to basically make a company go bust and restrict customer choice just because they don't like it? On the other hand the customer buys into the ecosystem when they buy an iOS device so you could argue that they know this already.
The socialists who believe a 75% tax rate is fair are telling Apple that they're too brutal towards their developers.
This thread is full of coffee spill traps and you're one of them.
Congratulations, you missed the key aspects of international business operations and antitrust laws.
Glassed Silver:mac
It is amazing France's biggest contribution to the mobile era is apps gratis. Given the world changing experience we have seen in the last six plus years and an app spammer is its biggest accomplishment? Maybe France shouid be banned from all software stores and ecosystems because they actively support spam?You can be as insular as you want, but just remember the fact that as Apple markets to and profits handsomely from EU nations, it has to follow EU rules. Either that or don't trade in that nation/area. Considering the size of the EU market, most companies would try to accomodate or compromise rather than lose billions in potential revenue don't you think?
France is just protecting one of it's own companies and therefore it's own interests from what it sees as an unacceptable decision. Apple isn't a stupid company so I'm pretty sure we will see something worked out on this issue soon enough.
I wonder how loosely the EU interpret anti-monopoly law.
For instance, what if iOS, Android and Windows Mobile were all closed markets requiring approval for app distribution? In that case, none of them would have a clear monopoly, and yet the entire mobile market is virtually locked down. 3 companies would have total control of the mobile development market, with pretty sweeping powers to eliminate competition with virtually no recourse in the law. That situation would never be tolerated in the desktop/laptop software market, it's too important to be locked-down like that.
So even though Apple has nothing like a majority marketshare yet (and Android is still quite open), the warning bells are going off.
IMO, the reason it's a big issue is because the mobile/laptop/desktop software segments are too crucial for one company to hold too much power. Monopolies in console platforms etc. just don't have the same impact outside that segment, which is why they're more tolerated.
So your analogy is that iOS should be treated like a game console?
IMO iOS has more similarities with Windows and general computing OS's than game consoles and should be treated as such...
The lockdown Apple has over iOS is unprecedented (again, non-game console, general consumer computing device).
If you were locked in to only being able to use one of them for years, then that might be a reasonable analogy, but it's not. Last time I checked you didn't routinely sign a two year exclusivity contract with physical stores to be able to use their products and nobody else's.
consoles don't change dev rules and disallow games after they've been released and then say NO.
Next you're going to tell people to leave this country if they don't like it.
So, someone buys an iPhone to use as a phone and discover this neat app store.
They download some apps that are helpful and entertaining.
A friend with an iPhone tells you about this app that may interest you.
You go search the store and it's gone.
Your friend has it but you can't because Apple had a wild hair and decided for its consumer base that this app was not good for you.
Yes Mr.Apple, may I have anonther lashing please...
If you were locked in to only being able to use one of them for years, then that might be a reasonable analogy, but it's not. Last time I checked you didn't routinely sign a two year exclusivity contract with physical stores to be able to use their products and nobody else's.
The more I hear about Fleur Pellerin the more I think she's the only and first minister in a long time, doing her job.
But people on this forum are obviously way too stupid and ignorant, typical of fanboys to even understand the stakes and regulations of business.
The point of bringing up consoles is to show that this sort of thing exists already. People keep bringing up non-software related examples, that have no similarity to the App store (you can typically sell physical goods in another store if one retailer doesn't want to sell it). The logical thing to do is to look for a similar examples in the software world.
The lockdown that Apple has on iOS has been there since day one. Are you suggesting that a company should not be free to choose what business model it wants to use?
Yes, I am saying that there are and should be limitations on their business models... just like the Microsoft/IE EU scenario. I understand that Apple does not have the same degree of monopoly, but Apple's lockdown is much more rigid and totalitarian than any attempts Microsoft made to control the user/device.
On a consumer grade computer, iOS' lockdown is unprecedented.