I'd like to see some regulation of all app stores that requires a formal appeals process for decisions to ban existing apps that also mandates that the app stays in the store until the appeal is resolved.
Split them into a hardware company, an OS company, an app store company, and an applications company, and permanently forbid those companies from collaborating or moving into new markets.
Apple is not a monopoly and has not been anticompetitive by any historic or contemporary legal definition. So no, it won’t get broken up any time soon.
You might see markers get regulated (eg. Mobile app stores) but that’s not antitrust, that’s legislation.
Well then I'm glad you're not in charge.
The best thing about my Mac is how well integrated the OS is with the hardware.
And from there how well the applications, which are well-integrated with the hardware, work alongside the corresponding applications on my iPhone.
Making it illegal to be successful and give customers what they want sure seems to to be a winning economy policy?
Also I have noticed this narrative increasing online. A size-able company/mega corp does something the public assumes is done with malice and the ONLY solution is to "break up" the company. I think this narrative is misguided.
It sounds like this was resolved through the appeals process and may have had the same outcome regardless.
Unlike some other controversial cases, this one did seem like a basic misunderstanding on Apple's part (specifically the reviewer/reviewers), and not a tricky judgement call.
The social media probably didn't hurt though, because the OP was professional and persuasive.
What an awful platform.
Also, Government regulation of app stores would be fatal for software freedom.
If you want to guarantee that the Apple App Store is never assailed by a competitor, your suggestion is a good one.
The pedantry of HN really is tiresome sometimes.
Without that, you’re just making up an assumption based on nothing.
Or a report from the developer detailing their interactions might tell us.
There isn’t guaranteed to be evidence, but there obviously could be.
The absence of evidence is clearly not justification for your interpretation.
At best you can say media pressure may have been an influence.
Asserting that it is the cause, is simply faulty logic.
My typical experience of stupid Apple rejections is this:
1. Stupid rejection.
2. File appeal.
3. The appeal result is to approve the application
In this case, it went like this:
1. Stupid rejection.
2. File appeal.
3. Don’t wait for the appeal result.
4. Run to the press.
5. The appeal result is to approve the application.
There’s no indication 3 & 4 were necessary here. This seems like a trigger-happy reviewer whose decision was always going to be reversed.
Apple has relented on similar cases after getting a lot of bad press so it’s a reasonable hypothesis that they do care about looking bad in public.
The only recent relenting involving the press that I am aware of is ‘Hey!’, which required Basecamp to implement a feature to conform to Apple’s rules.
Do you not think it's strange you had to go through this process multiple times in 6 months?