The demise of a mobile app, Apple cult-style

[kodiak799]

No joe off the street can go to apple and change their policies because they have a stock symbol.

But the FCC and DOJ can, in large part BECAUSE Apple is a publicly traded company, and that's why it's relevant. Not surprised it sailed over you head. I'm not the one who brought it up - other people claimed Apple can do whatever they want because they are a private company, wrong on both accounts. So apparently that particularly insight is not so obvious and more enlightening than given credit for, so much so that after being repeated several times it has yet to fully sink in.

 

[pyro6128]

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.

I can agree here with you. If you throw enough money at most issues you can get your way. I think the problem with this scenario is we don't know whether the app was a paid app or not. Then one has to figure, is the 99 cents apple will charge, if it is a paid app (most apps are like 99c), worth it to them. I would figure most likely not. I doubt the amount of people who would buy the app would be worth it to apple. It makes sense that they would rather just get rid of the app and not have to deal with it at all (like you said assuming that was the reason, for all we know it wasnt). I also agree that the phone industry is completely changing the way business is done. Questions like this are only going to get more difficult.

A little healthy debate never hurt anyone.

 

[czerdrill]

No joe off the street can go to apple and change their policies because they have a stock symbol.

But the FCC and DOJ can, in large part BECAUSE Apple is a publicly traded company, and that's why it's relevant. Not surprised it sailed over you head. I'm not the one who brought it up - other people claimed Apple can do whatever they want because they are a private company, wrong on both accounts. So apparently that particularly insight is not so obvious and more enlightening than given credit for, so much so that after being repeated several times it has yet to fully sink in.

the FCC and DOJ haven't gone after apple's app rejection policies because there's nothing to challenge. they're not preventing you from accessing the content, they're just not distributing the content. only a moron would think the FCC or DOJ would force you to sell something or distribute something if you don't want to.

you've bought up the MS/Netscape thing like 5 times in this thread. And like I asked, was the resolution of that case that Microsoft must distribute Netscape and other browsers in windows OSs? No. Why? Because you can't force someone to distribute something. Again...not rocket science. The only head things are sailing over are yours, and thats because your a fanboy. Apple is not blocking your access to android content or the contents of that app. They are simply choosing not to distribute it. Everyone but you and Darkseider see the difference between the two.

The day the FCC or DOJ forces apple to distribute android apps, is the day you'll be right. I pray that you don't wait too long for that day.

 

[kodiak799]

I can agree here with you. If you throw enough money at most issues you can get your way. I think the problem with this scenario is we don't know whether the app was a paid app or not. Then one has to figure, is the 99 cents apple will charge, if it is a paid app (most apps are like 99c), worth it to them. I would figure most likely not. I doubt the amount of people who would buy the app would be worth it to apple. It makes sense that they would rather just get rid of the app and not have to deal with it at all (like you said assuming that was the reason, for all we know it wasnt). I also agree that the phone industry is completely changing the way business is done. Questions like this are only going to get more difficult.

A little healthy debate never hurt anyone.

Kudos for a well though out and mature response.

Apple is just an example here, and maybe it's not a good one, but some people seem to get bent out of shape when it's Apple being discussed without realizing you can change the name of the company and the conversation remains the same.

You hit exactly on the issue I've been discussing which is that the game is changing and these questions only get more difficult.

But I don't think this was a financial decision at all. You don't swat at gnats with a sledge hammer. There probably is another reason it got rejected and the developer tried to capitalize on it. I can't imagine Apple intentionally blocked this app out of some irrational fear when doing so puts far more attention on the issue. A bad business decision based on irrational fear over an app that would probably never register on the radar? Not buying it.

 

[kodiak799]

only a moron would think the FCC or DOJ would force you to sell something or distribute something if you don't want to.

The only head things are sailing over are yours, and thats because your a fanboy. Apple is not blocking your access to android content or the contents of that app. They are simply choosing not to distribute it. Everyone but you and Darkseider see the difference between the two.

The day the FCC or DOJ forces apple to distribute android apps, is the day you'll be right. I pray that you don't wait too long for that day.

LOL, I'm not going to bother. You can't make the logical connections or grasp the implications no matter how many times it's repeated and explained. If the DOJ can step in and "persuade" Apple to distribute Google Voice why would an Android news app be any different? And MS never blocked distribution of Netscape in the first place, so by your logic where's the problem? What you fail to grasp is anti-competitive behavior takes many forms and it's clearly a lost cause to attempt to begin helping you understand that.

I notice you like to throw fanboy around every time your ignorance shows.

FYI, by the time the Netscape suit was settled, Netscape was essentially dead. I'm quite certain MS would gladly have included Netscape in its browser rather than pay $750M in punitive damages.

 

[czerdrill]

only a moron would think the FCC or DOJ would force you to sell something or distribute something if you don't want to.

The only head things are sailing over are yours, and thats because your a fanboy. Apple is not blocking your access to android content or the contents of that app. They are simply choosing not to distribute it. Everyone but you and Darkseider see the difference between the two.

The day the FCC or DOJ forces apple to distribute android apps, is the day you'll be right. I pray that you don't wait too long for that day.

LOL, I'm not going to bother. You can't make the logical connections or grasp the implications no matter how many times it's repeated and explained. If the DOJ can step in and "persuade" Apple to distribute Google Voice why would an Android news app be any different? And MS never blocked distribution of Netscape in the first place, so by your logic where's the problem? What you fail to grasp is anti-competitive behavior takes many forms and it's clearly a lost cause to attempt to begin helping you understand that.

I notice you like to throw fanboy around every time your ignorance shows.

FYI, by the time the Netscape suit was settled, Netscape was essentially dead. I'm quite certain MS would gladly have included Netscape in its browser rather than pay $750M in punitive damages.

Didn't we go through this already with your Microsoft/Firefox example? If Microsoft prevented Firefox from running on Windows, that is anti-competition and censoring. If Microsoft doesn't provide a link to the Firefox installer on every windows desktop that's not. Would you like to think of two more conflicting companies so I can clarify this for you again?

If Apple blocked the Google Voice App, iPhone users would not be able to access the content of that app which is visual voicemail, texting and calling out using your GV number. Therefore Apple can't do that. Again...the only head things are sailing over are yours. You can't distinguish between blocking content and blocking a link to content.

With this android app, they are not blocking content, they are not blocking anything android related. the only thing they're doing is not providing a link on their store to downloading the content of the app. Like I said, think hard of two more conflicting companies and get back to me, and I'll tell you about those as well, since you need things told to you 40 times.

Again...the FCC cannot force you to distribute something in your store. Show me one instance where a company was forced to distribute software. You can't, cuz it has never happened. You are a waste of time. And I keep letting you waste my time. I'm just as moronic as you for getting involved in these inane arguments with a fanboy.

Blocking content completely, and blocking an app are two different things. Yes, I know. You don't realize that. it's obvious...

You can appreciate that this android app is simply an interface to a website right? I hope you're not foolish enough to think that its a self sustaining app that has no internet backend (although I wouldn't put it past you. Since it's android related and you being a fanboy, you might think the dev somehow managed to create a mini internet within the app itself which sustains itself). Therefore, every part of the app is available online, and apple can't and won't block that and if they tried to, the DOJ and the FCC will force them to unblock it. Like I said, when the DOJ and FCC force Apple to distribute this app, then you'll be right. It's not gonna happen. It's funny that you think it will, or think it should.

I notice you preface your posts with "LOL" to try to validate what you're saying as obvious or something. It's transparent. just say what you mean. you don't have to include the LOL to act like you can't believe no one gets it and to somehow convince yourself that you're right. (and no one does get it, according to you, except the two biggest fanboys on these forums...pretty awesome...if everyone has a problem with what you're saying, they all must be crazy, right? nice.)

Clearly Microsoft would rather include it than pay damages. You saying that is akin to your touting apple as a "publicly traded company!!!" it's not a revelation and it means nothing. A settlement is not the best option just because its a settlement (again you continue to display a child-like mentality. because someone say's its right, it must be) it's a way for two sides to move on without a long grueling case. celebrities who crash into regular people always settle with them. meanwhile if two regular people crashed, it'd go to court, insurance companies would get involved, and one side would end up paying a buttload to someone else. so because the first case was settled that means the ending was the correct one and the person not at fault really had justice served? you really are naive if you believe that...but i already know that.

btw, stop picking parts of my posts to comment on, and ignoring the ones you have no answer to. at least make an attempt to discuss all points in my post...it makes you look stupid when you don't.

Lemme guess..."LOL blah blah blah blah blah" right?

Please let me know how much more you'd like it dumbed down in your next post.

 

[TwerpPoet]

Everyone is absolutely right. Ignore your detractors, the black knight is slain. Go now and rest.

Who knows what evil will threaten the realm on the morrow? Perhaps Darth Jobs will again attack the Android alliance, Beast Gates rise from his retirement and begin the apocalypse, or Google attempt to peek under yon maidens skirt and reveal her panty color to base strangers.

Be prepared, polish thy rhetoric, hone thy wit, and keep thy sophisms close to hand. The next level awaits, heros. :icon_ devil:

 

[czerdrill]

Everyone is absolutely right. Ignore your detractors, the black knight is slain. Go now and rest.

Who knows what evil will threaten the realm on the morrow? Perhaps Darth Jobs will again attack the Android alliance, Beast Gates rise from his retirement and begin the apocalypse, or Google attempt to peek under yon maidens skirt and reveal her panty color to base strangers.

Be prepared, polish thy rhetoric, hone thy wit, and keep thy sophisms close to hand. The next level awaits, heros. :icon_ devil:

Finally this thread can end!

 

[Asperity]

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.

You're right, guess I missed it. Thanks for pointing it out, albeit in a very smug manner.

With that clarification in mind, I don't think your hypothetical situation fits because Apple isn't using vertical integration to any sort of advantage. It doesn't create it's own News App (the Craftsman tools) and forbid other competing news apps (the off-brand tools) from entering the store. Instead, Apple allows third party vendors to create products natively with their own product, and handle distribution through their own distribution channel if they deem the product is worth the cost in overhead of their distribution system.

All Apple has done here is chosen not to deliver Android-exclusive news through it's own distribution channel to iOS devices. It hasn't censored or made the content inaccessible from iOS devices at all. Developers of the app in question can easily develop a mobile website, using iPhone's built in WebApp support, to provide the exact same content a native App would provide. By doing so, once a user visits this site, he or she can bookmark it in iOS's Safari Browser and have the bookmark placed on their home screen. The user then has an app icon dedicated to the website that takes them to the content, and the only functional difference is that it goes through Safari instead of its own native app.

Because the content is still readily accessible and can be consumed through iOS devices, it isn't feasible to claim that this move substantially reduces competition.

 

[czerdrill]

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.

You're right, guess I missed it. Thanks for pointing it out, albeit in a very smug manner.

With that clarification in mind, I don't think your hypothetical situation fits because Apple isn't using vertical integration to any sort of advantage. It doesn't create it's own News App (the Craftsman tools) and forbid other competing news apps (the off-brand tools) from entering the store. Instead, Apple allows third party vendors to create products natively with their own product, and handle distribution through their own distribution channel if they deem the product is worth the cost in overhead of their distribution system.

All Apple has done here is chosen not to deliver Android-exclusive news through it's own distribution channel to iOS devices. It hasn't censored or made the content inaccessible from iOS devices at all. Developers of the app in question can easily develop a mobile website, using iPhone's built in WebApp support, to provide the exact same content a native App would provide. By doing so, once a user visits this site, he or she can bookmark it in iOS's Safari Browser and have the bookmark placed on their home screen. The user then has an app icon dedicated to the website that takes them to the content, and the only functional difference is that it goes through Safari instead of its own native app.

Because the content is still readily accessible and can be consumed through iOS devices, it isn't feasible to claim that this move substantially reduces competition.

Precisely. Only two people here are arguing this point. They both say things like "cult", "sheep" and "uncle steve"...coincidence? Naw.

 

[abhoward9]

Why is this even a discussion? The beauty of the free market is that if you don't like how a private company handles business, you don't buy their products.

 

[czerdrill]

Why is this even a discussion? The beauty of the free market is that if you don't like how a private company handles business, you don't buy their products.

I guess cuz people are implying that if a company doesn't want to distribute a product that that means they are a cult. Which is dumb.

 

[kodiak799]

I don't think your hypothetical situation fits because Apple isn't using vertical integration to any sort of advantage. It doesn't create it's own News App (the Craftsman tools) and forbid other competing news apps (the off-brand tools) from entering the store. Instead, Apple allows third party vendors to create products natively with their own product, and handle distribution through their own distribution channel if they deem the product is worth the cost in overhead of their distribution system.

Because the content is still readily accessible and can be consumed through iOS devices, it isn't feasible to claim that this move substantially reduces competition.

Fair points, but MS never prevented Netscape from being loaded, yet steps it took to make it difficult to install or switch browsers were a problem. You're saying Apple isn't blocking the content but in fact merely preventing apps that make accessing content easier - especially when that is the direction of mobile apps - puts an app at a competitive disadvantage. And in that regard Apple's action here is very similar to the finding against MS.

You can look at Google Voice (and that really should be the end of this discussion) and the use of 3rd party development tools for other examples. As a monopoly, which in this case the app store is because of IOS being closed, you simply can't arbitrarily block apps from being distributed. When those arbitrary actions reduce competition - whether Apple competes directly or not - the DOJ typically has something to say about it. Mac can do it because they only have 5% market share, but with IOS you are talking 25-30% share and that becomes an issue. It's not about Apple profiting but that this company suffers economic loss as a result of Apple's anti-competitive behavior.

And you simply can't say "go across the street". You're dealing with contracts and phones worth hundreds, even thousands of dollars and are a stretch for many consumers (good 'ol USA spend spend spend), not to mention money already spent on apps they've purchased. It puts that developer at a rather large disadvantage when he can't access 25% or more of the market unless people spend hundreds of dollars to switch phones, if it's even feasible. No one is going to make that move for a single app, especially one just for very targeted news.

Nor can the developer simply go to another IOS app store as an alternative - only one game in town that arbitrarily sends him packing. Sure, they'll get away with it because this guy can't take them on like Google, but that doesn't make it right or justifiable.

 

[TwerpPoet]

Fair points, but MS never prevented Netscape from being loaded, yet steps it took to make it difficult to install or switch browsers were a problem...

Hmm, maybe my memory is slipping, but I don't remember the DOJ stepping in until Microsoft was accused of bullying computer suppliers. They threatened to revoke their OEM licenses unless they stopped including Netscape on their computers, especially as the default browser. That went far beyond simply refusing to supply a competing product in it's own stores. They was telling another store owner that if they didn't stop offering the competing product they couldn't sell Microsoft's product. An acceptable (if short sighted) practice for a small business, but a gross abuse of power for a monopoly.

Up till then all you had were some pissed off customs that got tired Explorer getting reset as the default browser every time they installed or started a Microsoft program. There were also some allegations that Microsoft denied Netscape access to more efficient APIs so that Explorer would outperform it. None of that got the DOJ involved. Though there might have been some civil suit actions going on. I don't remember if there were.

 

[TwerpPoet]

Hmm, maybe my memory is slipping, but...

Apparently my memory is slipping, or it was not as significant an event as I remmember. Any rate, Wikipedia does not agree with me, and that's as much research effort as I'm willing to put in for the night.