The only thing they are consistent about when reviewing iOS apps is being completely inconsistent. You cannot point to the acceptance of one app as evidence that some rule isn't being applied to another app.

Apple constantly rejects apps for claimed rule violations while allowing other apps through with identical violations. Apple frequently rejects app updates because of features which were in previous, accepted versions while claiming that the rule in question is not new. Apple frequently rejects apps for rules that aren't written down anywhere, which they insist are ironclad, and which disappear the moment you bring public attention to the situation.

It's like, Dr. Frankenstein is up in his castle doing some weird shit. Should we grab our pitchforks and torches, or should we see exactly what he's doing first? What if Dr. Frankenstein has been unleashing weird undead horrors upon the town at an average rate of once a week for the past seven years? At some point it becomes reasonable to just assume that he's up to the same stuff as usual.

> You cannot point to the acceptance of one app as evidence that some rule isn't being applied to another app.

This is something they won't even discuss if you question how other apps can have some feature they may not like. You could have the same exact feature, and you'll get rejected.

This is not a case of somebody breaking the rules and trying to say that the rules do not apply. This is a case of the rules suddenly being reinterpreted to mean something completely different from what they used to mean.

Imagine if you stepped on a worm and then got arrested for murder. Would it not be a reasonable thing to say, "uh, there's another guy stepping on worms right over there and you're not arresting him, so what gives?"

No, it isn't. The other guy is irrelevant; the fact of the matter is, YOU broke the rules.

While it is another example of a bad review, it's not necessarily an example of a ridiculous new practice by Apple. Maybe it is maybe it isn't, but 1 app is far from proof.

Yes, this is far from proof. But Apple has done stuff like this constantly since the iPhone SDK was first released. At some point, it becomes reasonable to stop giving them the benefit of the doubt, and assume that there's a good chance something bad is going on, just like the last thousand times.

If they roll it back, great! I imagine being called to task for a stupid decision will help make that happen.

I've never been involved with iOS, but from the various articles I've read, it sounds like there is a large team involved with approvals, their process is largely manual, their internal documentation is lacking, and they're probably missing simple things like checklists.

Just like every other rule/law in the world.

What matters is that some dev made a wild claim that Apple is actively denying Pebble apps for being Pebble apps, when in fact they just failed to follow the rules. That's all there is to this. That this story is as popular as it is is ridiculous. The headline is clickbaity as hell and just outright false.

They can and do say "All apps that do X are forbidden" while not taking down some apps that clearly do X.

None of this really matters though because the title/claim are still bogus.

Apple does not move quickly, or consistently, or sanely. The continued presence of the official Pebble app on the store is completely consistent with a new Apple policy of prohibiting apps that talk about Pebble. Apple often starts by simply rejecting updates, and the Pebble app hasn't been updated since February. When Apple does start going after existing app versions, it often takes weeks or months. For example, there were several stories from the past fall about apps that came up with novel uses for the new Today screen in iOS 8, submitted, got accepted, were in the store for a month or two, then were suddenly given the choice of removing the feature or being yanked because it turns out that they were going against the arbitrary rules about what you're allowed to do in a Today widget.

The guidelines state "3.1 - Apps or metadata that mentions [sic] the name of any other mobile platform will be rejected."

The poster states the app was approved previously just fine: "SeaNav US has previously been approved by Apple with no problem, we have had Pebble support in SeaNav for nearly 2 years" The poster gives no reason to believe the metadata has changed recently to mention Pebble.

Granted this is based on one example, but it seems unfair to say this was already the policy.

Here's a second example, the official Fitbit app, which does repeatedly mention the Fitbit device in the metadata. https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fitbit/id462638897?mt=8

Many of them seem to be there as justification to choose from if they see something they don't like.

But regardless of whether it's evenly applied or not, I don't like their policy.

Their description is extremely vague.

Apple is a vile anti-competitive monstrosity. These jerks needed to be slammed with a lawsuit long before this one single example of their flamboyant and abundant anti-competitive behavior.

While Apple are being increasingly huge dicks with their ecosystem I think you'd be hard-pressed with an antitrust case because Apple does not have a monopoly (or even a majority marketshare) on mobile devices.

> [Merriam-Webster] of, relating to, or being legislation against or opposition to trusts or combinations; specifically: consisting of laws to protect trade and commerce from unlawful restraints and monopolies or unfair business practices.

It doesn't only apply to monopolies but it is a very good tool for dealing with them.

(yes, Twitter does just that, and yes, it's anti-competitive in my book).

Simply not being able to mention "Android" or "Android Wear" or now "Pebble Watch" is ridiculous. If I chose to buy an Android Wear or Pebble Watch, it's because I felt it was a better match for me... I still would have bought an iPhone (since I'm looking for iPhone Apps).

This is exactly what they've done.

I realize that. If you look at the parent, they were making the argument that it's not the same.

Don't they have long history of doing exactly that?

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2104603/metrotwit-vanishes-as...

I think you want to say "anti-competetive", not "antitrust". Antitrust legislation is what is used against anti-competitive companies. But yes, otherwise you are absolutely right: Apple's behaviour is monopolistic and unfair and "vile" is not unjustified.

Microsoft was in a position of arguably less control in the late 90's and got a huge antitrust case brought against them. Apple is somehow getting away with wildly anticompetitive behavior (more broad than just this case) and for some crazy reason we are all supporting it because "that's the way it is!"

When Microsoft was the dominant OS, imagine Windows having a blacklist of applications you can't install because they advertised compatibility with Linux or Mac apps. People would riot. But we accept exactly the same behavior from Apple like it's totally fine.

Apple has nowhere near the market share that Microsoft has back in the 90's and if you don't like this decision you can take your money elsewhere. In the 90's you literally could not. It is a totally different situation.

You actually still could. There were plenty of non-Windows OEMs back then (SGI, Apple, and Sun are examples; all of them built desktops/workstations without Windows installed (instead using IRIX / Mac OS / SunOS/Solaris, respectively)).

In 1995, if you walked into a shop and said "I need a computer" you were shown a range of machines, all running Windows. It was hard to buy a bare machine without Windows unless you built it yourself. Various PC OEMs made noises about offering other OSes (or even creating their own) but Microsoft shut them down with licensing clauses.

The court cases eventually had the desired effect and now OEMs are free to offer Linux and ChromeOS machines as well as Windows. Took a long time though.

Historically this hasn't been a hurdle for litigation. However, the floral language I used isn't only a result of the App Store - it arises from the many instances of this type of behavior. Take the interaction between iTunes and iDevices as another example. Want to use Winamp to manage your music? Tough. Want to get apps from another store? Tough. Want to browse your phone files with your OS native file manager? Tough. Want to develop apps for the device on anything but a Mac? Tough.

Other companies were litigated for merely pre-installing software on their OS (even though alternatives could be installed at a later date). In many cases with Apple alternatives aren't a possibility whatsoever (unless you violate DMCA).

In order to be regulated under Anti-trust, Apple would need to have a monopoly on some market that isn't simply described as "their customers". The closest they came was iPod, but it looks like that hovered around 75%

http://stratechery.com/2010/apple-innovators-dilemma/

So, would probably not fall under anti-trust.