Sources: since February, Apple has rejected at least five versions of Facebook Gaming, citing rules that prohibit apps that primarily distribute casual games
Apple has repeatedly denied Facebook's new Gaming app from appearing in its App Store, citing its own rules.
The Times' report that Apple has rejected at least five Facebook Gaming builds since February explains why that approval never came — Apple reads the app's casual-games catalog as violating its rule against apps whose primary purpose is distributing games, a judgment call that puts Apple as both gatekeeper and competitor-adjacent platform owner.
First-order effects
Facebook cannot ship its full gaming app to iOS users; every resubmission costs engineering time and delays live-streaming reach on the platform where it has no web fallback.
Second-order effects
Facebook's workaround playbook follows directly: by August it launched Facebook Gaming on iOS with the mini-games feature stripped out rather than keep waiting (publicly slamming Apple's policies in the process), and by October it routed around iOS entirely with free-to-play cloud gaming on desktop and Android, calling Apple's policies 'arbitrary.'
Third-order effects
With Apple citing weekly traffic to hundreds of millions of App Store visitors as leverage, the pattern points toward developer grievances over arbitrary gatekeeping hardening into regulatory scrutiny of App Store approval discretion — the same tension underlying calls for a regulated platform take rate.
The trend: App Store gatekeeping is turning major developers like Facebook into open critics who ship degraded or bypassing products rather than accept Apple's discretionary approvals.
There is no chance in bloody hell that we're going to pay Apple's ransom. I will burn this house down myself, before I let gangsters like that spin it for spoils. This is profoundly, perversely abusive and unfair.
A hill I would die on: curated app stores have been hugely, unambiguously good for users and software developers, and especially for user security and privacy. 1/
We keep trying to find logic, consistency in Apple's App Store decisions. What's different about Fastmail? Why not Gmail? Outlook? But it's looking at the question the wrong way. The answer is much more basic: power. Apple can do what they want, when they want, so they do.
Maybe I'm too pessimistic but seeing Apple get a lot of props about this and wondering what the implications are. Feels weird given that a feature like this can normalize perpetual surveillance via a virtual assistant that is always listening to you https://twitter.com/...
@_shatzer @Gabrielducharme @DanGrover @nytopinion Well they do not have big market share there so not the right line of attack. Should be Google on search; Apple on App Store; Amazon on third party; FB on social
@film_girl @TimothyBuckSF I have no position on anecdotes of inconsistency. However, prior methods of distribution of software were fraught w/ inconsistency, opacity, and essentially bribery. So no matter what one thinks of today's Stores they are a vast improvement over Retail, …
@sorcery_markw Nothing sudden about that. Market definition is a basic part of competition law. The EU is quite capable of saying Apple has a monopoly on iPhones.
Re: the App Store stuff. Even if you completely think Apple is in the right (and I haven't seen many people willingly carrying water for the $1.5T company), from an optics perspective alone, how is this not an utter shit show?
4/ third, even if some of the rules are judged illegal or unfair, I personally value Apple's tight control of third party app distribution as a guard against most malware and a protection of privacy. I favor curation.
Look closely and you will definitely find a notable portion of the developer / tech community who think Apple's handling of the App Store is both fair and correct. Their voices don't generally get amplified as much as the outrage and critical but that's social media for you.
Otherwise, I think @gruber nails it: “the distinction is not so much between what is and isn't a “reader” app or what is or isn't a “business” app, but between companies which are too big for Apple to push around and those they can.” https://daringfireball.net/...
I understand where Apple is coming from with regard to Hey. I disagree with it, but I understand it. I don't understand why they chose that hill to die on a week before WWDC & the day the EU opened an investigation. I wonder just how high up it escalated.
Oh, great to find out that the DOJ has also been following the case. Speaking with their antitrust division tomorrow. Hopefully they're getting a proper case ready to match what @vestager and crew is doing in the EU 🙏
I don't particularly like many of @dhh's tweets either but you're nuts if you think Basecamp is deliberately putting a multi-million investment at risk just so they can get free publicity. No one saw this block coming given what seemed to be settled law in the App Store.
The funny thing is Apple issued a press release on Monday emphasizing how it only forces it take rate on so-called digital content and services -> https://www.apple.com/... https://twitter.com/... https://twitter.com/...
The Basecamp/Hey thing has driven a conversation about iOS being opened up and Apple's control of the App Store being loosened. That's totally overthinking it. Apple should just charge a lower fee and be consistent about applying clear, transparent rules.
It remains astonishing to me that Apple's App Store hasn't been the subject of a serious antitrust challenge. A testament to how unwilling the rest of the tech industry is to cooperate with regulators and risk being seen as crossing AAPL. If you come for the king... https://twitt…