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.
Let's keep some perspective here. Apple holds a minority share of the market. One might argue that the money is on the Apple platform. That leads to the question of why? Maybe it's because Apple's carefully curated experience attracts customers who have a large intersection with the group of customers who are willing to spend money.
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.
The article essentially chronicles surprise that this app would be rejected. What you describe is you believe the terms are unjust. These are two different things.
I may not agree with the speed limit on the freeway, but I am not surprised if I am ticketed for going over it.
A big issue is that the app was approved in the first place. If I'm having an emergency and a cop stops me and says it's fine to speed, then tickets me a mile later, I would be surprised.
Oh, we most certainly do have a choice, especially as developers. If enough of us don't support their infrastructure or buy their products then we most certainly can effect change and their bottom-line. Don't be upset and powerless, be proactive and don't support Apple in any way.
If you don't develop for Apple because you are under the misapprehension that the Play Store is more open there will be plenty of people willing to take the money.
The Play Store does allow app launchers (alternative home screens and themes are even popular), but they do still ban other non-malicious apps, most notably: pornography, apps that block ads in other apps, and YouTube video downloaders. Though the latter is allowed in the Amazon Appstore, I think.
Launcher apps have been available on Android since the beginning. I doubt the developer would have seen such a massive initial success on Android unless their app was particularly impressive.
at the time Microsoft had > 90% market share of desktop PC operating systems. currently apple doesn't have even close to this market share for mobile handset/tablet operating systems.
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.
As far as I know Windows never contained such terms. You should likely make it clear that that is a hypothetical.
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.
Ehh I'm not sure I'd consider this either an "alternate desktop/home screen environment" or something that "simulate(s) multi-App experiences".
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.
As a developer, you've got to be able to assess risk in a more nuanced way than this is/isn't violating the guidelines. It is startlingly obvious that Apple's Guidelines are full of gray areas. Just read the introductory bullet points:
I agree. Like I said Apple plays it safe and if you are near the line you might as well be over. There have been countless stories of this happening.
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.
That's the price you pay for an ecosystem of users and a base platform with minimum fragmentation. It's just the risk of doing business when the base platform isn't yours. It's not like there wasn't any historical precedent for this... and history tends to repeat itself.
Then why was it accepted in the first place? This specific instance goes to show they are not really checking what they are approving. Instead, probably just making sure it "looks" like it follows the iOS design guidelines. After the app started to get more attention is when Apple started to look into this is what it seems like.
>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
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.