Apple to ban MS Health / MS Band apps from AppStore?

[TechFreak1]

You know what, if it played out differently and the two parties couldn't come to an agreement.

This may have lead Pebble to look for "other" markets :winktongue:.

 

[Wolfjt]

I don't think Apple will be banning the health app or anything that has to do with Pebble. I heard it was just a mistake that they banned the SeaNav app. I do believe it's back in the store

 

[Jaredallister]

Pebble would not have paid money. More likely Pebble sent a nice notice via its legal team if a phone call didn't help.

Pebble's legal team vs Apple's legal team? My moneys on Apple's......

 

[DroidUser42]

Pebble's legal team vs Apple's legal team? My moneys on Apple's......

Yeah, but even the best legal team is going to have a difficult time with anti-trust lawsuit. I have a feeling that it was a meeting of the legal teams and Apple decided it was in their best interest. When a dominate player like Apple tries to cut out competitors, lawmakers take note.

 

[a5cent]

Pebble would not have paid money. More likely Pebble sent a nice notice via its legal team if a phone call didn't help.

I don't think Apple did anything wrong, and I see no grounds on which Apple could be legally threatened, so I'm not convinced that is how this went down.

 

[Jaredallister]

Yeah, but even the best legal team is going to have a difficult time with anti-trust lawsuit. I have a feeling that it was a meeting of the legal teams and Apple decided it was in their best interest. When a dominate player like Apple tries to cut out competitors, lawmakers take note.

Their is no anti-trust issue, One Apple doesn't hold a monopoly position. Two Apple reserves the right to pull any app it so pleases. There is no law that saws Apple cannot. The Apple App Store is a Store, and its owner can pull anything off the selves if they dont want to sell it. No court can force any store to sell something if they choose not to, same applies to Apple here. And three, the app in question violated an App Store policy, so Apple is 100% in the clear because all developers have to agree to such terms when joining Apple's developer program.

 

[a5cent]

^ This is my understanding as well. Getting into trouble with anti-trust laws requires that cartels were formed, or that a company somehow misused their monopoly power. Cartels aren't the issue here, and with < 20% of the market, Apple couldn't convince a court they represent a monopoly even if they wanted to.

I'm no U.S. legal expert, but I don't see where people are getting the idea that Apple might be violating anti-trust laws. Banning an app that competes with their own products and services may not be the nicest thing to do, but legally there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Like Snowmutt mentioned, I too understand Apple's decision, although that doesn't mean I like it.

This is one of those areas where I think MS stands out. They explicitly state that anyone, including competitors, are welcome to do business in their app store. EDIT (I just learned the following is no longer correct): In contrast to Apple who reserve the right to delist an app for any reason, MS has explicitly sacrificed the legal right to do so for arbitrary reasons, by explicitly stating the scenarios under which they would (illegal activities and pornographic material).

 

[Jaredallister]

^ This is my understanding as well. Getting into trouble with anti-trust laws requires that cartels were formed, or that a company somehow misused their monopoly power. Cartels aren't the issue here, and with < 20% of the market, Apple couldn't convince a court they represent a monopoly even if they wanted to.

I'm no U.S. legal expert, but I don't see where people are getting the idea that Apple might be violating anti-trust laws. Banning an app that competes with their own products and services may not be the nicest thing to do, but legally there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Like Snowmutt mentioned, I too understand Apple's decision, although that doesn't mean I like it.

This is one of those areas where I think MS stands out. They explicitly state that anyone, including competitors, are welcome to do business in their app store. In contrast to Apple who reserve the right to delist an app for any reason, MS has explicitly sacrificed the legal right to do so for arbitrary reasons, by explicitly stating the scenarios under which they would (illegal activities and pornographic material).

While I agree with almost everything you said but, Microsoft like Apple (Google, Blackberry, Amazon, and everyone else who runs an app store) reserves the right to pull an app if they feel like it. That rule isn't just Apple's. Microsoft unlike Apple cannot afford to do so. Also while I do like that Microsoft includes us iOS and Mac users with their products and services, they're not doing it out of the kindness of their hearts. Microsoft is a software company, so if it want to remain revenant, it has to include the two dominate mobile platforms. Unlike Apple who is a integrated player who like to ingrate all its products and services. Putting Apple software and services on non Apple hardware doesn't make sense for Apple business, but it does for Microsoft. If they didn't have to, they most likely wouldn't support iOS and Android as well as they do. Other than that, I believe everything else you said is spot on.

 

[CliveSinclair]

I think the relationship between Apple and Microsoft is a little more 'secure' than others. After all, Bing is the default search engine, Microsoft allows free use of Office, etc. No matter how big Apple may be, to start going down the route of banning other product association may lead to legal action. Anti competition regulations are becoming stricter every day.

Having said all that, Apple has fallen out with FitBit...?

 

[a5cent]

While I agree with almost everything you said but, Microsoft like Apple (Google, Blackberry, Amazon, and everyone else who runs an app store) reserves the right to pull an app if they feel like it. That rule isn't just Apple's. Microsoft unlike Apple cannot afford to do so. Also while I do like that Microsoft includes us iOS and Mac users with their products and services, they're not doing it out of the kindness of their hearts.

1)
I'd never claim MS does anything out of the kindness of their hearts. It's all business. MS is just no longer in a position to act the way they used to. Other large software companies have now taken on the mantle of the industry-bully.

2)
On the issue of app removal policies I stand corrected (thanks for that). I went back to check their current developer agreement and you're right. MS can remove an app at any time for any reason, but I know for a fact that this was not always the case. At one point they went out of their way to state something close to the opposite.

Still, in terms of how that theory translates into practice, I think it's safe to say that differences remain, because we've seen a few examples of Apple removing apps that competed with their services (selling music being the most prominent example, although that's admittedly quite a while back now). I've yet to see MS do anything similar, so although the legal mumbo jumbo seems to be pretty much identical, I still think it's rational to prefer MS' approach, as their track record does support my claim that they view their store as neutral ground where anyone is welcome to do business, direct competitors included.

 

[Jaredallister]

1)
I'd never claim MS does anything out of the kindness of their hearts. It's all business. MS is just no longer in a position to act the way they used to. Other large software companies have now taken on the mantle of the industry-bully.

2)
On the issue of app removal policies I stand corrected (thanks for that). I went back to check their current developer agreement and you're right. MS can remove an app at any time for any reason, but I know for a fact that this was not always the case. At one point they went out of their way to state something close to the opposite.

Still, in terms of how that theory translates into practice, I think it's safe to say that differences remain, because we've seen a few examples of Apple removing apps that competed with their services (selling music being the most prominent example, although that's admittedly quite a while back now). I've yet to see MS do anything similar, so although the legal mumbo jumbo seems to be pretty much identical, I still think it's rational to prefer MS' approach, as their track record does support my claim that they view their store as neutral ground where anyone is welcome to do business, direct competitors included.

I do agree with you that Microsoft current approach is to allow everyone to develop for Windows Phone, competitors included. An augment can be made that Apple has a very similar approach. But Im not auguring that right now, my question to you is do you think they would still act that way if they were in Apple position? iOS has the best Developers support of all the major operating systems, mostly because Apple's user base is incredible desirable (in terms of disposable income and willingness to spend money for what they want and perceive as good value. Also for the incredible strong loyalty and product satisfaction of 99%, meaning their more likely to buy another iOS device to use they're app, equaling more money for the developer). Shareholders would revolt if Apple didn't take full advantage of that fact. I believe you haven't seem any examples of Microsoft doing so because Microsoft doesn't have the user base, marketshare, or third party developer support weather it be software or hardware to enable them that luxury. It makes perfect sense (and is perfectly legal and reasonable) for Apple to want to put it own products first, and not want mention of a competitor's product (in the case if this tread, Pebble) on it's platform (without a share of the $$). Same thing applies to Microsoft, they just doesn't use the same tactics because of what I said above.

 

[a5cent]

I believe you haven't seem any examples of Microsoft doing so because Microsoft doesn't have the user base, marketshare, or third party developer support weather it be software or hardware to enable them that luxury.

Your hypothesis is that if MS had more market share and the same level of 3d party mobile developer support, they'd also have made more shady app removal decisions like we've seen from Apple. I suspect that's incorrect. I don't doubt that MS would also have made their own share of dubious decisions, I just don't think they would have been the same ones.

my question to you is do you think they would still act that way if they were in Apple position?

If by "Apple's position" you mean that MS also adopted the same business model and became predominantly a music and consumer hardware company, they yes, they'd do exactly the same thing. If by "Apple's position" you're referring only to Apple's mobile OS market share and profits, then no, I don't think MS would behave in the same way.

I honestly doubt that any of the things you mentioned (market share, level of 3d party mobile developer support) factor into MS' practical approach to app removals. I suspect that having a predominantly corporate rather than a predominantly consumer oriented customer base is a far more important consideration (businesses expect MS to provide a neutral and level playing field for everyone contributing to the app store, whereas consumer's couldn't care less).

Of course this is mostly speculation, so we'll likely never really know.

 

[Jaredallister]

Your hypothesis is that if MS had more market share and the same level of 3d party mobile developer support, they'd also have made more shady app removal decisions like we've seen from Apple. I suspect that's incorrect. I don't doubt that MS would also have made their own share of dubious decisions, I just don't think they would have been the same ones.



If by "Apple's position" you mean that MS also adopted the same business model and became predominantly a music and consumer hardware company, they yes, they'd do exactly the same thing. If by "Apple's position" you're referring only to Apple's mobile OS market share and profits, then no, I don't think MS would behave in the same way.

I honestly doubt that any of the things you mentioned (market share, level of 3d party mobile developer support) factor into MS' practical approach to app removals. I suspect that having a predominantly corporate rather than a predominantly consumer oriented customer base is a far more important consideration (businesses expect MS to provide a neutral and level playing field for everyone contributing to the app store, whereas consumer's couldn't care less).

Of course this is mostly speculation, so we'll likely never really know.

I dont believe any of Apple's app removal discussion are shady, Apple is back up by the law and the fact that its Apple's store, and platform and dev have to play by Apple's rules to gain access to it's close to a billion user base. Same go for Microsoft and Google.

Its hard to remove apps when you dont have them, Apple does, Microsoft doesn't...

What I meant was if Microsoft had the developer support of Apple, and of an Application developer violating their App Store policy, I would think they would react the same way Apple did, by removing it, and telling the developers to fix it, pay up, or get lost.

Also just an added note, this has to be my favorite debate I have ever had on mobile nation. Usually I am auguring with a ****** but this is a welcome change!

 

[a5cent]

I dont believe any of Apple's app removal discussion are shady,

You're right. Shady is not the right word. English is not my native language so I sometimes screw up like that. What I meant is that despite being (IMHO) legally sound, removing apps based on their potential to compete with Apple's own services, does leave behind a bad aftertaste. In general, consumers benefit when corporations compete, and Apple supressing that competition is a bad deal for consumers. Short term because consumers have fewer choices, and long term because the rate of innovation is throttled. This is one aspect of what many refer to as Apple's "walled garden".

Obviously it makes life simpler for Apple, and if I were them I'd do the same. It's business.

Its hard to remove apps when you don't have them, Apple does, Microsoft doesn't...

Now, now. Call me touchy, but I don't appreciate overgeneralizations. With over 500'000 apps in the WP store and having the majority of the big apps, I'd say that statement is uncalled for.

What I meant was if Microsoft had the developer support of Apple, and of an Application developer violating their App Store policy, I would think they would react the same way Apple did, by removing it, and telling the developers to fix it, pay up, or get lost.

Of course MS would remove an app that violates their store policies. No difference there. The difference is in what both companies consider to be such a violation. Like I said, I'm certain that MS and Apple don't play by the same app policy rulebook, because they value different things.

Amazon is one such example. They published apps to both MS' and Apple's store. Zero objections from MS. The same can't be said of Apple. MS and Apple simply aren't guaranteed to react in the same way when faced with the same situation. This is an example of that. If you disagree on that, then we'll have to agree to disagree I'm afraid.

Also just an added note, this has to be my favorite debate I have ever had on mobile nation. Usually I am auguring with a ****** but this is a welcome change!

Happy to oblige :wink:

P.S.
We have rules around here in regard to circumventing our profanity filter. I didn't want to slap you with a warning so I just edited your post, but I'm not a big fan of doing that either. Please consider yourself warned regardless, and help me avoid such tasks in the future :wink:

 

[Jaredallister]

You're right. Shady is not the right word. English is not my native language so I sometimes screw up like that. What I meant is that despite being (IMHO) legally sound, removing apps based on their potential to compete with Apple's own services, does leave behind a bad aftertaste. In general, consumers benefit when corporations compete, and Apple supressing that competition is a bad deal for consumers. Short term because consumers have fewer choices, and long term because the rate of innovation is throttled. This is one aspect of what many refer to as Apple's "walled garden".

Obviously it makes life simpler for Apple, and if I were them I'd do the same. It's business.



Now, now. Call me touchy, but I don't appreciate overgeneralizations. With over 500'000 apps in the WP store and having the majority of the big apps, I'd say that statement is uncalled for.



Of course MS would remove an app that violates their store policies. No difference there. The difference is in what both companies consider to be such a violation. Like I said, I'm certain that MS and Apple don't play by the same app policy rulebook, because they value different things.

Amazon is one such example. They published apps to both MS' and Apple's store. Zero objections from MS. The same can't be said of Apple. MS and Apple simply aren't guaranteed to react in the same way when faced with the same situation. This is an example of that. If you disagree on that, then we'll have to agree to disagree I'm afraid.



Happy to oblige :wink:

P.S.
We have rules around here in regard to circumventing our profanity filter. I didn't want to slap you with a warning so I just edited your post, but I'm not a big fan of doing that either. Please consider yourself warned regardless, and help me avoid such tasks in the future :wink:

Well with major developers leaving Windows Phone left and right, and the lack of support from major developers such as major American banks, Snapchat, Facebook, Instagram, Google, and more, I dont believe my statement was out of place.

I agree with the statement, but not the example. Apple will react in a way that best fits Apple's business, as it should. So will Microsoft.

I dont buy the augment that consumers would have less choice due to Apple's closed eco-system or Apple's choice to pull competitors products from it's virtual selves. Speaking strictly in mobile, consumers have a choice between two major platforms, and two minor platforms. Apple deciding to pull competing services in favor of its own (as is Apple's right on Apple's platform) consumers can choose from another three platforms. I understand and agree with the statement that competition is great for consumers, but competition is alive and well in the mobile marketplace. Customers dont like what Apple is doing, they an more to Google, Microsoft, or Blackberry, and the same vice versa. There are many benefits to Apple's approach and there are some benefit to Microsoft and Google approach.

 

[a5cent]

Well with major developers leaving Windows Phone left and right, and the lack of support from major developers such as major American banks, Snapchat, Facebook, Instagram, Google, and more, I don't believe my statement was out of place.

You said WP doesn't have any apps that could be removed, listed a few the WP ecosystem is missing, and then ignored the many it has. That's at the very least an overgeneralization. No way around that.

That's usually not a big deal, but in forum based discussions such as this, where people with many different levels of interest and knowledge read along, they must be called out as figurative rather than factual expressions. It would be easier for both of us if we could just omit them to begin with.

You expect me to be precise in my wording (see my use of "shady"). I think I should be able to expect the same from you.

There are many benefits to Apple's approach and there are some benefit to Microsoft and Google approach.

How do consumers benefit when Apple decides to limit features or ban an app from their ecosystem?

 

[tgp]

Now, now. Call me touchy, but I don't appreciate overgeneralizations. With over 500'000 apps in the WP store and having the majority of the big apps, I'd say that statement is uncalled for.

Not totally uncalled for. Here's an article from neowin that has an interesting paragraph:

The current Windows Store development community is quite small, even if you include the Windows Phone devs, when compared to the iOS community and Android. Microsoft knows this and the Windows Store is still not filled with quality apps. Yes, there are large numbers of apps in there but there is also a lot of crap like an SNES emulator that is in no-way legal. But it?s a numbers game here for Microsoft - if they blow out all the crap apps, the store will be a barren desert as opposed to junkyard with a few gems sprinkled about.

This is from November 2014, but I don't believe much has changed since then. The interesting thing is that neowin.net is mostly pro-Microsoft, so I don't think we can credit this to bias, unless of course it's a rogue journalist.

 

[a5cent]

^ I don't disagree with the article. I just don't think it has anything to do with this discussion. How many of those no-name devs mentioned in the article will ever develop an app that directly challenges MS in a way that would compel MS to remove the dev's app from the store? Not many I assume (none?).

I've never heard of Apple ever removing a no-name app from their store without also mentioning exactly which of their stated policies it violates (bigotry, pornography, illegal activities, etc). That's not what this is about. This is about removing apps for competitive reasons that aren't specifically mentioned in a company's app store policies. I'm not aware of that ever happening to a no-name developer. I've only read about that happening to larger companies, like Amazon, Spotify etc. Those types of apps are, with few exceptions, available on all platforms, which is why the mentioned statement from Jared is something that I'd place more in ******/hater territory (obviously not saying you or Jared are fanboys/haters. I also do my fair share of misspeaking or point-missing).

It makes sense that only the bigger companies must deal with the more arbitrary app removals, because only they offer the types of services on the scales where MS and/or Apple potentially have something to lose.

 

[tgp]

^ I don't disagree with the article. I just don't think it has anything to do with this discussion. How many of those no-name devs mentioned in the article will ever develop an app that directly challenges MS in a way, that would compel MS to remove the dev's app from the store? Not many I assume (none?).

I've never heard of Apple ever removing a no-name app from their store without also mentioning exactly which of their stated policies it violates (bigotry, pornography, illegal activities, etc). That's not what this is about. This is about apps being removed for reasons that aren't specifically mentioned as a company policy. I've never heard of Apple ever hitting a no-name developer in that way. It's always companies like Amazon, Spotify etc. Those types of apps are, with few exceptions, available on all platforms, which is why it's a statement that I'd categorize more in ******/hater territory (obviously not saying you or Jared are fanboys/haters. I also do my fair share of misspeaking or point-missing).

AFAIK it's only ever the big-name developers that are subjected to the more arbitrary types of app removals, and that makes sense, because only they offer the types of services on the scales where MS and/or Apple potentially have something to lose.

Thanks, but I have no clue what you said here! :wink:

 

[a5cent]

Thanks, but I have no clue what you said here! :wink:

Edited: This part of the discussion is about how companies may remove apps from their app stores for competitive reasons.

J: WP has no apps that could be removed. MS would remove apps just the way Apple does if it did!
A: Both stores have apps that compete with the OS provider's own services. Claiming WP has no apps so there's nothing to remove is an uncalled for overgeneralization.
T: Only partially uncalled for. Most of the apps in the WP app store are built by smaller no-name devs.
A: No-name devs aren't relevant to this discussion. It's about the big boys.

Doesn't seem difficult to me. Maybe I missed your point?