For example, maybe I'm browsing the app store for new apps and I come across this app in question. Reading the description I see it says something about the Pebble watch...hmmm..I've never heard of this. Now I look it up, it looks cool, I like it, now I want to buy the Pebble instead of the Apple watch.
Their app store - their rules. Just remove mention it and it'll be approved.
That just seems really messed up. Considering it may not seem so bad since Apple isn't really that diverse but imagine if Google did the same thing at the Play Store. No mention of any other search engines, ad networks, email providers, phones, internet providers, home automation, etc. Pretty sure people would find that unacceptable.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-google-skewed-search-results...
> But at a press conference at the FTC's headquarters, Chairman Jon Leibowitz said that after an "exhaustive" investigation, the commission found there was not enough evidence to conclude Google's search results violate fair-competition laws.
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/275429-google-dodges-fe...
It might be right from an objective point of view but it's a plain out dick-ish behaviour towards user friendly app management aka the user itself.
It sucks for the developers of iOS apps that are meant to integrate with Pebble (or other similar devices). I assume this means you can't create an iOS app whose sole purpose is doing something with a Pebble watch since otherwise there's no real way to describe it in the app store (not one that would make for easy discoverability at least).
IANAL, but this rule seriously smells of abuse of a dominant position.
So is Apple fanboyism. There are laws that prevent Ford from requiring you to only service your vehicle at Ford dealerships. There are also laws that prevent Ford from restricting sales of third-party after market parts in franchised dealerships. Not a good comparison.
> is just as ignorant as saying Ford is a monopoly because only they make F-150s
Which only goes to support my statement of the weakness in your example. That even if you don't entertain the grandparents claim that a manufacturer has a monopoly on a product, your specific example shows there are indeed laws that prevent Ford from asserting that kind of control on the market. Which include franchise laws preventing auto manufacturers from owning dealerships which is likened to Apple owning the App Store. It also prevents auto manufacturers from preventing third party manufacturers from creating compatible aftermarket parts, likened to Apple's MFi restrictions. All of these are playing out elsewhere in the example market you brought into the discussion. The manufacturer controlled marketplace is playing out through Tesla. The third-party and aftermarket suppression is playing out in the Right to Repair in the auto and heavy equipment market. I never asserted that the grandparents claim of a "manufactures monopoly" over their own product was correct. Only that your example was a poor choice.
[edit] spelling
I'm not saying what Apple is doing is right, I'm saying it's not illegal.