“killing the industry” that’s rich. Follow the rules and make a better app.
What’s to say the ones removed aren’t better than Apple’s screen time?
Obviously they weren’t. Apple screen time is an integrated service.
"Obviously" according to who? You? You're the guru everyone goes to to check whether apps are good or not? Alright then. Dropbox is better in many ways than iCloud Drive. Does that mean Apple should remove Dropbox? And some web browsers have different/more features than Safari. I suppose they should go too, along with Waze, Google Maps and Word.
This behavior has been going on for some time. It’s not a good time for Apple to remove apps that function a lot like their own, especially when they are under investigation in many countries for abuse.
I wonder why you can get 3rd party calendars, browsers and email programs, but not system utilities?
Because system level utilities would be a vector for malicious code.
Not more risky than an App. Just look what kind of trust damage Google did to Apple by harvesting user data when using Google in Safari. They violated Apple’s terms and they didn’t even get a slap on the wrist.
So it’s not a viable excuse. It’s not a question of security, it is an example of abuse by Apple dating back to Sherlock on the Mac. That was almost an identical copy to Watson.
Now that Apple is the size it is and isn’t a niche player, it won’t be able to get away with this behavior for much longer.
Better to leave the other Apps alone, it will end up costing Apple less in the long run.
Apple has actually done this for years, even back in the Classic MacOS days. Apple was notorious for copying third party utilities/apps/extensions and integrating them into the Mac OS, with no credit to the original developer.
According to their logic, they should kill also any calendar apps, note apps, maps apps, etc. something doesn’t make sense here.
The reason it doesn’t make sense is these articles all cast what Apple is doing as removing competing apps, which is false. These apps were removed because they use private APIs and expose personal information of users.
If Apple simply removed competing apps the Netflix, Spotify, Word, Excel, and hundreds of other apps would be gone.
When Apple didn't have a solution, they tolerated these apps. Also, Apple has tightened up their privacy recently. Kicking out Google and Facebook for violating the enterprise license agreement is in the same category. Now Apple has a solution so they are cracking down on privacy violations from these apps. There is nothing nefarious about this. This is Apple's SOP.
Any company making their living on tracking user's private information on iOS is going to have a sad future. Personally, this makes iOS and the iPhone ecosystem more attractive not less. If you don't want restrictions, go to Android. The phones are very good and much cheaper. You can opt out of any security or privacy restriction your heart desires. Apple does not have a monopoly on modern smart phones.
I’m very disappointed that so few commenters actually read the article before commenting. As stated in the article, this has exactly ZERO to do with the apps “competing” with Screen Time, and EVERYTHING to do with using unauthorized APIs to copy the feature, and using the feature as an excuse to collect data about children illegally.
it SHOULD be obvious to anyone with two functions brain cells to rub together that Apple has ZERO issue with apps that do similar things to existing Apple apps ( see also: every word processor, voice recorder, and Calendar app), but they have to follow THE RULES.
This is absolutely not Apple being anti-competitive; this is the spyware “flashlight“ apps debacle all over again, only this time Apple is acting quickly to prevent violations of law, as well as violations of its rules for developers, specifically with regard to private APIs.
Thank you to those few commenters who “get it,“ and a big raspberry to the rest of you. Literacy or reading comprehension classes might help.
I don't really care. My trust in small developers to be ethical has been waning. Screen Timers are a security attack vector and can easily be prone to abuse with selling user data.
When Apple didn't have a solution, they tolerated these apps. Also, Apple has tightened up their privacy recently. Kicking out Google and Facebook for violating the enterprise license agreement is in the same category. Now Apple has a solution so they are cracking down on privacy violations from these apps. There is nothing nefarious about this. This is Apple's SOP.
Any company making their living on tracking user's private information on iOS is going to have a sad future. Personally, this makes iOS and the iPhone ecosystem more attractive not less. If you don't want restrictions, go to Android. The phones are very good and much cheaper. You can opt out of any security or privacy restriction your heart desires. Apple does not have a monopoly on modern smart phones.
Bingo — Apple is advancing privacy as a principal selling point going forward — it's a feature, not a bug. (No irony intended.) The Screen Time adjustment to the guidelines needs to be placed in this context. It sucks for developers who have been doing these things for years, but times change and what was once permissible is no longer.
Still, it seems like Apple could do more to improve its communication about this kind of change to the guidelines.
I’m very disappointed that so few commenters actually read the article before commenting. As stated in the article, this has exactly ZERO to do with the apps “competing” with Screen Time, and EVERYTHING to do with using unauthorized APIs to copy the feature, and using the feature as an excuse to collect data about children illegally.
it SHOULD be obvious to anyone with two functions brain cells to rub together that Apple has ZERO issue with apps that do similar things to existing Apple apps ( see also: every word processor, voice recorder, and Calendar app), but they have to follow THE RULES.
This is absolutely not Apple being anti-competitive; this is the spyware “flashlight“ apps debacle all over again, only this time Apple is acting quickly to prevent violations of law, as well as violations of its rules for developers, specifically with regard to private APIs.
Thank you to those few commenters who “get it,“ and a big raspberry to the rest of you. Literacy or reading comprehension classes might help.
That isn't accurate. 2.5.1 of the Guidelines state "Apps may only use public APIs and must run on the currently shipping OS." and "Apps should use APIs and frameworks for their intended purposes and indicate that integration in their app description." Nothing in the article says they were using private APIs.
They were also referred to the 5.2.5 of Guidelines: "don't create an App that appears confusing similar to an existing Apple Product, interface, app, or advertising theme."
So, in summary: 1) They were using public APIs which Apple, at best, leaves open-ended to interpretation so they can slam the door on devs pretty much on a whim. That has never happened to an iOS dev before, right? 2) They evoked the "don't duplicate something we do" guideline for Apps that existed before their feature and those apps did it better.
They were all fine with these apps beforehand and they were approved without the security concerns that some of you have now touted as justification for this. Oh. Please. If some here don't see this for what it is, I humbly suggest you need to take your Apple rose-colored glasses off.
I have a feeling that Apple is going to be just fine, as long as they don't abuse their power and they stay within the lines of the terms that they outline for developers. iOS is not a free-for-all platform. It comes with rules and regulations, including the well-known possibility that iOS may gain a feature that previously existed only in third-party apps.
I'm very happy that Apple believes in purging, because there needs to be some babysitting of the junk apps that pollute the store.
Imagine if Walmart was a free market where any john and jill that made something could walk in and put their products onto the shelves to be sold? Imagine how much junk would take up valuable space? They are not paying for that space.
I have a feeling that Apple is going to be just fine, as long as they don't abuse their power and they stay within the lines of the terms that they outline for developers. iOS is not a free-for-all platform. It comes with rules and regulations, including the well-known possibility that iOS may gain a feature that previously existed only in third-party apps.
I'm very happy that Apple believes in purging, because there needs to be some babysitting of the junk apps that pollute the store.
Imagine if Walmart was a free market where any john and jill that made something could walk in and put their products onto the shelves to be sold? Imagine how much junk would take up valuable space? They are not paying for that space.
A company's rules and regulations can stipulate anything, doesn't make it legal nor does it mean they won't attract the ire of the regulators.
If the App Store needs purging, why start with these apps rather than the tens of useless battery monitor apps?
Imagine if Walmart had an exclusivity deal with a supplier, the supplier invests money branding their product just as Walmart wanted, under the impression the deal will last for a number of years. Then a 6 months later Walmart decides to make a product that's materially the same and drops the supplier, replacing the third party product with their own. Is that fair? What's that supplier to do then?
Since you bring that up, I'm wondering why it has escaped the EU's notice that iOS users aren't presented with a default browser ballot like MS was forced to do with Windows and Google is being forced to do with Android.
Never mind that Apple forces browser developers to use the WebKit framework, but it also makes it very inconvenient for users who don't want to use Safari, because link handlers always open Safari, intentionally or unintentionally.
It's an unpleasant thought, but in many ways Apple now represents what loyal users hated about MS in the past, having that market power and not being afraid to throw it around.
It's an unpleasant thought, but in many ways Apple now represents what loyal users hated about MS in the past, having that market power and not being afraid to throw it around.
Yes they have for a long time now. Their App Store is not just a store anymore. It’s a major - and the only - pathway for content creators to get published. It’s a monopoly that creates a huge imbalance. It’s an unfair anti-competition practice, especially with just two major ecosystems in the world (iOS and Android). People who say “it’s Apple and their rules so don’t complain” lack a macro view on what is happening. This needs to change.
That isn't accurate. 2.5.1 of the Guidelines state "Apps may only use
public APIs and must run on the currently shipping OS." and "Apps should use APIs and frameworks for their intended purposes and indicate that integration in their app description." Nothing in the article says they were using private APIs.
They were also referred to the 5.2.5 of Guidelines: "don't create an App that appears confusing similar to an existing Apple Product, interface, app, or advertising theme."
FTA: "Developers have also been told that they were violating guideline 2.5.1 of the guidelines, which prohibits use of public APIs in an unapproved manner." So you're correct -- partially. If a developer is abusing public APIs, that's the same thing as using unauthorised APIs as far as I (and Apple) are concerned.
As far as section 5.2.5 goes, the wording is pretty clear: don't create an app that appears [confusingly] similar. This clearly refers to apps that copy existing Apple apps or are named/themed in a very similar manner, and it's perfectly legit grounds for rejection. As I mentioned earlier, there are -- pretty obviously -- many apps existing in the App Store that are very similar to existing Apple apps, but clearly don't violate the rules. Not just big companies, little indie developers like Agenda (as yet another example). So, self-evidently, Apple isn't engaged in any anti-competitive practices -- which leaves abuse of 2.5.1, or 5.2.5.
However, if you have specific evidence of an app that was removed from the App Store for having a feature set that Apple copied, I'd appreciate seeing that. Yes, I'm aware of Apple having released a couple of apps -- well over a decade ago -- that prominently copied features from independent apps. But since the App Store instituted these rules and since Apple adopted a policy of being perfectly OK with competitive apps therein, I haven't seen an instance of Apple removing apps for having gotten "there" first (with a feature set). You may know something I don't on that score, so again I'd be pleased to see any documented incident you happen to have direct knowledge of.
Seems the NYT were informed that their article was not accurate but decided to publish it anyway. When did we get to the point that certain journalists and media outlets will knowingly publish fairytales despite having better information at hand.
It's getting to the stage now that Apple is regularly thrown bad press that has no basis in reality - what is with that exactly?
Comments
Apple has actually done this for years, even back in the Classic MacOS days. Apple was notorious for copying third party utilities/apps/extensions and integrating them into the Mac OS, with no credit to the original developer.
If Apple simply removed competing apps the Netflix, Spotify, Word, Excel, and hundreds of other apps would be gone.
Any company making their living on tracking user's private information on iOS is going to have a sad future. Personally, this makes iOS and the iPhone ecosystem more attractive not less. If you don't want restrictions, go to Android. The phones are very good and much cheaper. You can opt out of any security or privacy restriction your heart desires. Apple does not have a monopoly on modern smart phones.
it SHOULD be obvious to anyone with two functions brain cells to rub together that Apple has ZERO issue with apps that do similar things to existing Apple apps ( see also: every word processor, voice recorder, and Calendar app), but they have to follow THE RULES.
This is absolutely not Apple being anti-competitive; this is the spyware “flashlight“ apps debacle all over again, only this time Apple is acting quickly to prevent violations of law, as well as violations of its rules for developers, specifically with regard to private APIs.
Thank you to those few commenters who “get it,“ and a big raspberry to the rest of you. Literacy or reading comprehension classes might help.
Overall, I don’t like Apple’s behavior, and if it keeps going this way, they deserve to be punished.
However, I don’t think it’s overly abusive- yet.
Would the Google store allow another operating system other than Android to be made available? Probably not...
Would Apple? Most likely not. Are both of those “limitations” anti competitive? Maybe..
Does the Microsoft store allow every Google App and Apple app(if there is any) available?
abuse with selling user data.
Still, it seems like Apple could do more to improve its communication about this kind of change to the guidelines.
They were also referred to the 5.2.5 of Guidelines: "don't create an App that appears confusing similar to an existing Apple Product, interface, app, or advertising theme."
So, in summary: 1) They were using public APIs which Apple, at best, leaves open-ended to interpretation so they can slam the door on devs pretty much on a whim. That has never happened to an iOS dev before, right? 2) They evoked the "don't duplicate something we do" guideline for Apps that existed before their feature and those apps did it better.
They were all fine with these apps beforehand and they were approved without the security concerns that some of you have now touted as justification for this. Oh. Please.
If some here don't see this for what it is, I humbly suggest you need to take your Apple rose-colored glasses off.
it is odd, in fact Apple have been trying to avoid the suspicion of favouriting their own apps until recently.
I'm very happy that Apple believes in purging, because there needs to be some babysitting of the junk apps that pollute the store.
Imagine if Walmart was a free market where any john and jill that made something could walk in and put their products onto the shelves to be sold? Imagine how much junk would take up valuable space? They are not paying for that space.
If the App Store needs purging, why start with these apps rather than the tens of useless battery monitor apps?
Imagine if Walmart had an exclusivity deal with a supplier, the supplier invests money branding their product just as Walmart wanted, under the impression the deal will last for a number of years. Then a 6 months later Walmart decides to make a product that's materially the same and drops the supplier, replacing the third party product with their own. Is that fair? What's that supplier to do then?
Their App Store is not just a store anymore. It’s a major - and the only - pathway for content creators to get published. It’s a monopoly that creates a huge imbalance. It’s an unfair anti-competition practice, especially with just two major ecosystems in the world (iOS and Android).
People who say “it’s Apple and their rules so don’t complain” lack a macro view on what is happening. This needs to change.
As far as section 5.2.5 goes, the wording is pretty clear: don't create an app that appears [confusingly] similar. This clearly refers to apps that copy existing Apple apps or are named/themed in a very similar manner, and it's perfectly legit grounds for rejection. As I mentioned earlier, there are -- pretty obviously -- many apps existing in the App Store that are very similar to existing Apple apps, but clearly don't violate the rules. Not just big companies, little indie developers like Agenda (as yet another example). So, self-evidently, Apple isn't engaged in any anti-competitive practices -- which leaves abuse of 2.5.1, or 5.2.5.
It's getting to the stage now that Apple is regularly thrown bad press that has no basis in reality - what is with that exactly?