scottwilson wrote: »
Meh, some statement defending Apple. Apple is always right. They were probably terrorists.
I'd reword that as "It is mainly because Apple proved to be superior", which makes your argument untrue (it's healthier to have the superior option win out than have mediocre offerings drown the better one, and Apple's fully integrated experience is more pleasing to the user, right?)
Right, absolutely. It was kicked because of the overarching in-app purchases rule. But that rule’s to stop music stores.
How would it be monopolistic? You don’t like it, develop for Android.
IPhone 6 picture has been leaked see here its gorgeous http://imgdino.com/viewer.php?file=78253612471688092037.png
Well, how about this? You own and operate a music store. One day the owner of another music store down the street, in a bad location, walks in and asks if he can put a cash register on your counter and have one of his employees man it so he can sell his music to your customers too. What would your answer be? Let's say you tell him no. Now he goes to the government and demands that they force you to allow him to sell his music in your music store, because he's a lot smaller business than you and his store is in a bad location. They agree and the next day your competitor has his cash register all set up in your music store. Is that okay with you?
What I find funny is all the people who do not understand this and think is okay to set up your own store within a story and also think what Apple is doing is illegal or constraint of trade or something similar.
This is no different than any store in america or elsewhere who sells products, they will not allow anyone to just walk in into their store and set up their own operations to sell the exact same products as the store owner. If this company wants to sell music, set up your own store and if you want to lock in consumer to your product then design your own ecosystem and compete like everyone else.
This company is no better than a parasite trying to live and grow off the hard work of others.
It does seem a bit inconsistent that Apple expressly refuse to host other stores, but they do allow subscription services like Spotify, Pandora and the like (Netflix if you include movies).
iTunes and HMV are competitors, but so are the subscription services, so from a perspective it seems harsh that HMV gets penalised for following a similar business model (purchase music outright) to Apple while the others are fine because the "purchase" takes place elsewhere.
Not defending HMV, but if you're talking about parasites standing on the shoulders of Apple's technology then HMV aren't the only ones, and the rules aren't working in an even and fair way.
They wanted to get their name out there (play for relevance) and gauge user reaction. They were hoping for an uproar.
This is a non-story anyway, for the following reason:
The app was reportedly removed for violating clause 11.13 of Apple's iOS developer guidelines --?"Apps using IAP to purchase physical goods or goods and services used outside of the application will be rejected."
It could have been HMV or Joe small-time developer. The rules apply to everyone.
I think this is prelude to a lawsuit from a third-rate, has-been company trying to extract a few court-adjudicated bucks from Apple. Given some of the recent idiotic rulings -- e.g., Cote/DoJ vis-a-vis iBooks -- one can see why they are emboldened to do something like this.
They have little or nothing to lose.
It is simple, if you want to sell your product in someone else's store you have to follow their rules. No different than any brick and mortar store that have been around for 100 years, You can not walk in their store and set up your own shop or direct customers within their store ways from their store to buy your competing product at some other location.
Again if you want to sell product your own way apple and no one else is stopping you, just go get your own store and working capital and make it happen. Stop living off others efforts.
Notice how no government is law enforcement entity has step in to stop Apple from enforcing these rule everyone believe is wrong. Why, because it is acceptable business practices which have been around for a long time ad it is legal. Apple just wrote them all down since it appears developers fail to understand normal business practices.
How is it inconsistent? Pandora, for example, sells the Pandora One subscription IAP through the App Store not through a third party mechanism and thus do not run afoul of the rules. Spotify and Netflix do not sell their subscriptions through their iOS apps so also do not run afoul of the rules. There is zero inconsistency since all those apps you mention follow Apple's rules about IAP.
Also, it's pretty bizarre that only Apple gets flak for this when Google Play has the same guidelines that all IAP use Google Wallet instead of a third party.
Your last sentence is, in my opinion, the most important thing anyone has said concerning this story. Apple needs to be careful it doesn't win the battle and lose the war.
Except that if you put your app on Google Play, which 99% of apps will do, you can only use Google Wallet for any IAP. So the terms are no different to Apple's App Store.
I think that was kind of my point... Rule has been there since Day 1 - why on earth would HMV think that suddenly they are going to change the terms and conditions of the App Store all on their own by sneaking one past the App Store review process? They should have realized that this would have been a problem and had their backup plan ready to go right away rather than trying to be sneaky. Just kind of strikes me as a bit of a "oh, look at how eeeevil Apple is being... poor little us.... all you poor, maligned consumers should come back to us... we'll treat you nicely...." - a.k.a., a false bit of outrage to try to get some free publicity.
It's more to do with the double-standard. We don't tolerate this from anyone else. As for people blocking me, that's their perogative. I don't see a lot of it because I recognised a lot of the troublemakers from the Cnet forum and blocked them before I made my first posting. I don't need that nonsense here. It's bad enough on Cnet.
tallest skil wrote: »
First of all, because they have their own.
1. How did this slip by Apple? Seems like an obvious feature to look for when a company like HMV submits an app.
2. How could HMV expect to get away with this, when the terms of the App Store are pretty clear on forbidding competing functions?