Section 10:
10. User interface
10.4 Apps that create alternate desktop/home screen environments or simulate multi-App widget experiences will be rejected
So, like it or not, it's what we agree to if we develop apps for iOS.
As in, we have no other choice. They could write a clause that said your third child must be named Macintosh and everyone would "agree" to it because there is no other option.
That does not mean it's right.
Consider this: It's the late 1990's and the Terms of Service for Microsoft Windows contains "10.4 Apps that create alternate web browser environments are not allowed".
Microsoft has its pants sued off in court and is almost forced to break up as a company.
I'd argue that Apple has far, far more control that Microsoft ever did, but face no similar consequences for any of their anticompetitive behavior.
That's what upsets me about this.
I may not agree with the speed limit on the freeway, but I am not surprised if I am ticketed for going over it.
I agree that Apple should have never approved the app in the first place. Once they let it through, there was no good solution.
1. Allow all widget launchers, which they don't want and are explicitly against the TOS.
2. Allow only this widget app to stay, giving it an unfair monopoly. Cue kingmaker article.
3. Allow this version of the widget app to stay, reject all updates. Like #2, but worse in every way.
4. Pull the app off the store; allow it to continue to function for people to have it.
5. Push the big red button to pull the app off the store and every phone.
Any time a flagrant TOS violation sneaks through, whether by App Review oversight or by subterfuge, this happens. Apple always chooses #4.
Of course you do. Android, Windows Phone, even Blackberry if that's your thing.
remember, the anti-trust laws are meant to curtail abuses of monopolies. they are almost powerless when a company is not actually a monopoly. that's by design. when a company is not a monopoly the remedy to their abuses is to simply buy from their competitor.
If we accept that premise, then what's "right" is what builds that user base. You have to take the bad with the good. I sound like a broken record at this point, but there is plenty of history surrounding apps that act as launchers. That singular feature represents a huge overlap with the primary role of the home screen, and the App Store Guidelines clearly spell out that this is a no-no.
Widgets are a new case, because they're not full fledged apps. A widget could not "create an alternate desktop/home screen environment" because it is only a small part of a greater environment itself (Notification Center). However, the intent of guideline 10.4 is pretty clear. Apple wants to control the means by which users launch applications. That goal serves what Apple believes to be the best interest of users. You can disagree with that, but it's not your platform, and you haven't (yet) built a platform upon which millions of dollars are transacted in app purchases every year.
What I'm saying is that Apple isn't exactly clubbing seals here. They're doing what they believe to be best for their platform, and they're doing it in a way that is pretty consistent with past behavior.
In answer to your point, the likely reason Apple can do it but Microsoft could not is two things:
- Microsoft was a monopoly, iOS is not.
- At the time Microsoft was competing against browser vendors who licensed their software for a fee (e.g. Netscape cost between $30-69) and not only utilised their monopoly to squish that entire industry ($0 browser) but also created an uncompetitive market in another field (leveraged their OS monopoly to squish the browser market). That isn't similar to the 2014 browser market.
It's a collection of action shortcuts. iOS 8 does something similar when you double tap the home button. It shows recent contacts at the top and tapping one expands into actions such as call or text.
I mean I get it. Apple is King and if you stand too close to the line they play it over conservative and pull you over. But I don't think it breaks the rules you mentioned. It doesn't matter what you or I think though, of course.
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
"We'll know it when we see it."
If that isn't a clear indication that Apple takes broad latitude in the judgement of what is acceptable, I don't know what is.
It's obvious to me that the launcher widget fell in a gray area. Any app that launches other apps overlaps with the functionality of the home screen.
There are also countless stories of Apple changing their mind when there is enough public outcry. So it's a calculated risk and blog posts like this are part of the plan if things don't initially go your way.
I believe the point of the article is that we don't like it. Terms of Service are not the ultimate arbiter of ethics.
Your profile states:
>my AppleTV runs XBMC
Which breaks the terms of your Apple TV software agreement. http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/appletv.pdf
>You may not, and you agree not to or enable others to, copy (except as expressly permitted by this License), decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, attempt to derive the source code of, decrypt, modify, or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any services provided by the Apple Software or any part thereof (except as and only to the extent any foregoing restriction is prohibited by applicable law or to the extent as may be permitted by licensing terms governing use of open-source components that may be included with the Apple Software).
>BY USING YOUR APPLE TV, YOU ARE AGREEING TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, UNLESS YOU RETURN THE APPLE TV IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLE’S RETURN POLICY. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, DO NOT USE THE APPLE TV.
So, like it or not, it's what you agree to when buying an Apple TV. You should probably return or not use your Apple TV
Reverse engineering and installing third party software in addition to, or over OEM software, has been widely held as legal, in addition.