Apple Not Yet Pulling Apps, Helping Developers Meet In-App Guidelines

[MacRumors]

Yesterday, we noted that Apple's new rules for in-app purchases and subscriptions for iOS were going into effect, and certain high-profile apps such as Amazon's Kindle app had yet to be updated to comply with the new terms. But with the calendar now having rolled over to July 1st and Kindle and other similar apps still apparently out of compliance, some have been wondering what Apple's plans are.

Macworld now reports that Apple is indeed planning to enforce the requirements, but has provided some additional time as it works with some high-profile developers to ensure that their apps are updated.

Macworld's sources can confirm that Apple has been working with various prominent developers to help them ensure their apps comply with the in-app content policies; expect to see updates to these apps in the near future.

Some less prominent apps will likely be pulled from the App Store as Apple starts to enforce the rule changes, but developers ought to be able to return to the store simply by updating their apps to comply.

Last week, Hulu updated its Hulu Plus application to comply with Apple's new rules by removing an external link to sign up for the subscription service. And Macworld notes that Netflix appears to have complied by leaving in a notice about visiting Netflix.com to sign up for the service but formatting it as plain text rather than a link. And earlier today, The New York Times activated in-app subscriptions for its content.

Article Link: Apple Not Yet Pulling Apps, Helping Developers Meet In-App Guidelines

 

[Eduardo1971]

I really doubt that some of the major player like Amazon will have their applications pulled from the store. Image the publicity that Apple would receive if they were to do this?

 

[Rodimus Prime]

I am waiting to see how Amazon response to it. My gut tells me they will give the finger to Apple and if Apple does anything they can expect a law suit from Amazon.

Amazon is among the few companies that has both the balls and the power to stand up to Apple on this.
For example they went a step farther than MS objection to App Store trademark. They created the Amazon AppStore. They will not remove the web link to their book store and will not go threw the in App payment method either. It will set the president for all others to follow.

 

[nwcs]

So the armageddon people have predicted to result from all this won't happen after all? Geez, now what do we do with all the angst over Apple's business decisions?

 

[nwcs]

I am waiting to see how Amazon response to it. My gut tells me they will give the finger to Apple and if Apple does anything they can expect a law suit from Amazon.

And what exactly could they sue about? That Apple won't let them put a free app in their store? I'm sure that'll get a big laugh from the judge.

 

[Small White Car]

And what exactly could they sue about? That Apple won't let them put a free app in their store? I'm sure that'll get a big laugh from the judge.

Exactly.

If Target doesn't want to sell JIF peanut butter then they don't have to sell JIF peanut butter. You can't sue Target to make them carry certain products.

 

[baleensavage]

It will be interesting to see what both Apple and Facebook do in this respect as both have a deadline of today for developers to use their payment methods or "get punished." Are we going to see a mass removal of games and apps or is the "deadline" just going to slide while Apple and Facebook "work with" the devs?

 

[dustinsc]

And what exactly could they sue about? That Apple won't let them put a free app in their store? I'm sure that'll get a big laugh from the judge.

There might be an antitrust case in there. You can't use your market power in one area to influence competition in another area. So, in other words, a court could find that Apple used its power as an OS developer to drive software sales at the expense of other software developers. But it would have to be proven that these are substantially different areas of their business. It's messy, but it would be like the case against Microsoft related to IE.

 

[lkrupp]

And what exactly could they sue about? That Apple won't let them put a free app in their store? I'm sure that'll get a big laugh from the judge.

The "major players" could decide to pull everything from the app store all together, let iOS users twist in the wind, and concentrate on that other mobile operating system.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

And what exactly could they sue about? That Apple won't let them put a free app in their store? I'm sure that'll get a big laugh from the judge.

The law suit they would bring is an Anti trust lawsuit in more than likely both a US court and an EU court. Remember EU courts would be a lot easier for Amazon to win in that in the US. The fact that Amazon has a chance of winning a case like that in the US tells us that they have a really good chances in Europe of pulling it off.
If Apple allowed side loading or 3rd party App stores for the iPhone Apple would have a case but Apple is the gate keeper and changed the rules on them and it is a case Apple has a good chances of losing in one of those places and could easily have fines in the billions.
The entire reason Apple back down on DRM for music years ago is the writing was on the wall for them to get nailed in court on it and Apple removed the DRM knowing if they didn't they would of been forced to licenses out fairplay so they removed it to buy them a lot more time or even eliminated the possibility of them having to do it.

 

[dethmaShine]

The law suit they would bring is an Anti trust lawsuit in more than likely both a US court and an EU court. Remember EU courts would be a lot easier for Amazon to win in that in the US. The fact that Amazon has a chance of winning a case like that in the US tells us that they have a really good chances in Europe of pulling it off.
If Apple allowed side loading or 3rd party App stores for the iPhone Apple would have a case but Apple is the gate keeper and changed the rules on them and it is a case Apple has a good chances of losing in one of those places and could easily have fines in the billions.
The entire reason Apple back down on DRM for music years ago is the writing was on the wall for them to get nailed in court on it and Apple removed the DRM knowing if they didn't they would of been forced to licenses out fairplay so they removed it to buy them a lot more time or even eliminated the possibility of them having to do it.

Again that stupid anti-trust B.S.

 

[marksman]

I am waiting to see how Amazon response to it. My gut tells me they will give the finger to Apple and if Apple does anything they can expect a law suit from Amazon.

Amazon is among the few companies that has both the balls and the power to stand up to Apple on this.
For example they went a step farther than MS objection to App Store trademark. They created the Amazon AppStore. They will not remove the web link to their book store and will not go threw the in App payment method either. It will set the president for all others to follow.

You really should refrain from using the letters "l-a-w" near each other in any of your posts. It is pretty clear you have little to no understanding how the law works.

 

[NebulaClash]

Antitrust? Amazon has their own Appstore, so what's the problem? Aren't they the ones insisting that consumers won't confuse the Apple App Store with the Amazon Appstore? So what antitrust can there be if Apple isn't the only way to reach the consumer?

Either Apple's App Store is so dominant as to trigger antitrust issues, in which case Amazon loses their Appstore name because it is confusing.

Or Apple's App Store is merely one of many ways for the consumer to get apps, in which case Amazon can call it Appstore and there is no antitrust.

 

[nwcs]

No chance of an antitrust suit. Apple's store isn't the only game in town. Consumers aren't locked to only using one device or means to access Amazon (or other company) content. No restraint of trade because there are MANY channels Amazon currently uses as well as can potentially use.

Also, iTunes has not been declared a trust or monopoly which sets the bar at a successful suit very high.

A judge will say: Amazon, you're selling your stuff in 30 (for example) markets and 1 wants to not sell your stuff. Tough luck. Hope it works out for you later. It's not the same as Amazon coming to the judge and saying, "This is our one and only sales channel because no other sales channels exist and if they refuse to let us sell through their channel then we are out of business." HUGE difference.

As for DRM stuff, who knows? I doubt any of us really know with any reasonable degree of certainty.

 

[Small White Car]

The law suit they would bring is an Anti trust lawsuit in more than likely both a US court and an EU court. Remember EU courts would be a lot easier for Amazon to win in that in the US. The fact that Amazon has a chance of winning a case like that in the US tells us that they have a really good chances in Europe of pulling it off.
If Apple allowed side loading or 3rd party App stores for the iPhone Apple would have a case but Apple is the gate keeper and changed the rules on them and it is a case Apple has a good chances of losing in one of those places and could easily have fines in the billions.
The entire reason Apple back down on DRM for music years ago is the writing was on the wall for them to get nailed in court on it and Apple removed the DRM knowing if they didn't they would of been forced to licenses out fairplay so they removed it to buy them a lot more time or even eliminated the possibility of them having to do it.

Don't you have to have something close to a monopoly for ANY of this to apply?

Or does that not matter in Europe? It does in the U.S.

 

[nwcs]

The "major players" could decide to pull everything from the app store all together, let iOS users twist in the wind, and concentrate on that other mobile operating system.

Of course that could happen. But it's unrelated to antitrust or anything legal. That's just business. If something like that happened, it would suck for us consumers but nothing illegal about it.

 

[*LTD*]

I am waiting to see how Amazon response to it. My gut tells me they will give the finger to Apple and if Apple does anything they can expect a law suit from Amazon.

Amazon is among the few companies that has both the balls and the power to stand up to Apple on this.
For example they went a step farther than MS objection to App Store trademark. They created the Amazon AppStore. They will not remove the web link to their book store and will not go threw the in App payment method either. It will set the president for all others to follow.

Apple isn't required to carry anyone's app. It's Apple's store and their rules.

Amazon can take their business elsewhere.

 

[WiiDSmoker]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

The law suit they would bring is an Anti trust lawsuit in more than likely both a US court and an EU court. Remember EU courts would be a lot easier for Amazon to win in that in the US. The fact that Amazon has a chance of winning a case like that in the US tells us that they have a really good chances in Europe of pulling it off.
If Apple allowed side loading or 3rd party App stores for the iPhone Apple would have a case but Apple is the gate keeper and changed the rules on them and it is a case Apple has a good chances of losing in one of those places and could easily have fines in the billions.
The entire reason Apple back down on DRM for music years ago is the writing was on the wall for them to get nailed in court on it and Apple removed the DRM knowing if they didn't they would of been forced to licenses out fairplay so they removed it to buy them a lot more time or even eliminated the possibility of them having to do it.

Again that stupid anti-trust B.S.

It's only stupid when it applies to Apple right?

 

[*LTD*]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)



It's only stupid when it applies to Apple right?

Except it doesn't apply at all in this case.

 

[NebulaClash]

Yeah, there's a weird effect that occurs here whenever a story involving the law crops up. Those posters who are predominantly anti-Apple (though they will assure you they use lots of Apple products as if that counters their anti-Apple propaganda) will assume immediately that Apple is in legal trouble. Even if it makes no sense.

Apple fans, of course, assume immediately that Apple should use the law against its competitors.

Typically neither side has a clue about the actual laws in question.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)



It's only stupid when it applies to Apple right?

Bingo point out that fact and the apple worshipers jump all over you as the neg. Rating that my post have.
They have provide no reason why apple has not thrown out yet.
Go look at the group saying not going to happen then look at the ones defending the vs amazon in the app store case and you noticed they are the same.

 

[*LTD*]

Bingo point out that fact and the apple worshipers jump all over you as the neg. Rating that my post have.
They have provide no reason why apple has not thrown out yet.
Go look at the group saying not going to happen then look at the ones defending the vs amazon in the app store case and you noticed they are the same.

People are just pointing out the reality re your antitrust claim. It has nothing to do with being pro or anti-Apple.

What would be the basis for such a lawsuit?

 

[InfernoShade]

There might be an antitrust case in there. You can't use your market power in one area to influence competition in another area. So, in other words, a court could find that Apple used its power as an OS developer to drive software sales at the expense of other software developers. But it would have to be proven that these are substantially different areas of their business. It's messy, but it would be like the case against Microsoft related to IE.

Dude, in the Kindle related thread some guy made a nice long post why this antitrust thing is way off. Go read it. This person had some legal experience, which you most likely do not. This is no where near antitrust.

 

[dethmaShine]

Bingo point out that fact and the apple worshipers jump all over you as the neg. Rating that my post have.
They have provide no reason why apple has not thrown out yet.
Go look at the group saying not going to happen then look at the ones defending the vs amazon in the app store case and you noticed they are the same.

So anybody that does not agree with your opinion is an Apple worshiper?

Is that against the forum rules, mods?

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Don't you have to have something close to a monopoly for ANY of this to apply?

Or does that not matter in Europe? It does in the U.S.

Do not need to be a monopoly or even close to one to be busted for antitrust. Just have to have enough market power to really hurt competition which there is no denying that Apple has that power. Amazon for example can point to ibooks coming out and Apple changing the rules to reflect it.