Apple Rejects Facebook's Gaming App, For At Least the Fifth Time (nytimes.com) 47
After a few weeks of consideration, Apple denied Facebook's new Gaming app. "Since February, Apple has rejected at least five versions of Facebook Gaming," reports The New York Times. "Each time, Apple cited its rules that prohibit apps with the 'main purpose' of distributing casual games." From the report: Facebook Gaming may also have been hurt by appearing to compete with Apple's own sales of games, two of the people said. Games are by far the most lucrative category of mobile apps worldwide. Apple's App Store, the only officially approved place for iPhone and iPad users to find new games and other programs, generated about $15 billion in revenue last year. Apple's rejections of the app from Facebook, a fellow Silicon Valley powerhouse, illustrate the control it exerts over the mobile software and entertainment ecosystem -- clout that regulators are increasingly examining.
The Facebook Gaming app on Android shows a catalog of simple games presented by category and with colorful icons. Facebook initially submitted its Gaming app to Apple for approval in late February, said the people with knowledge of the situation. Apple rejected that version, they said, citing Section 4.7 of its app rules, which state that HTML5 games are allowed "as long as code distribution isn't the main purpose of the app" and "the code is not offered in a store or store-like interface," among other restrictions. But the initial version of the Gaming app that Facebook showed to Apple was similar to the Android version, listing games by category in a manner that could be interpreted as "store-like." Trying to get the Gaming app through Apple's review process, Facebook then changed the design of the presentation of games in several ways, the people said. The colorful icons were removed in favor of a bland listing. The different games categories were removed to list all games at once. The ability to sort games was also taken away.
Facebook also included a version that looked almost exactly like how such games are presented already within the main Facebook app on Apple devices, which is a single unalphabetized, unsortable list, the people said. Apple said no to each of them, pointing to the same rule, they said. In Facebook's most recent submission, the Gaming app did not include a separate tab for playable games and included no way for the user to choose from a wide selection of games to play, the people said. Instead, that version suggested certain games within the user's news and activity feed. Apple denied it. For what it's worth, Google quickly approved the app and began offering it worldwide on April 20.
The Facebook Gaming app on Android shows a catalog of simple games presented by category and with colorful icons. Facebook initially submitted its Gaming app to Apple for approval in late February, said the people with knowledge of the situation. Apple rejected that version, they said, citing Section 4.7 of its app rules, which state that HTML5 games are allowed "as long as code distribution isn't the main purpose of the app" and "the code is not offered in a store or store-like interface," among other restrictions. But the initial version of the Gaming app that Facebook showed to Apple was similar to the Android version, listing games by category in a manner that could be interpreted as "store-like." Trying to get the Gaming app through Apple's review process, Facebook then changed the design of the presentation of games in several ways, the people said. The colorful icons were removed in favor of a bland listing. The different games categories were removed to list all games at once. The ability to sort games was also taken away.
Facebook also included a version that looked almost exactly like how such games are presented already within the main Facebook app on Apple devices, which is a single unalphabetized, unsortable list, the people said. Apple said no to each of them, pointing to the same rule, they said. In Facebook's most recent submission, the Gaming app did not include a separate tab for playable games and included no way for the user to choose from a wide selection of games to play, the people said. Instead, that version suggested certain games within the user's news and activity feed. Apple denied it. For what it's worth, Google quickly approved the app and began offering it worldwide on April 20.
Their rules explicitly ban (Score:1)
Their store rules explicitly ban apps that have the sole purpose of selling other apps, this isn't new or capricious.
It's not like any of the games don't have the sole purpose of stealing your information and propagating themselves on social networks.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Their rules explicitly ban (Score:1)
What legal grounds would the government have to end this sort of rule? They're not a monopoly, this is not a bait and switch, nobody is harmed except the profits of some major corporation over the profits of another major corporation.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you remember the government losing thier case.[sic]
No, because the Government didn't lose its case. All findings of fact against Microsoft were upheld, while the penalty was watered down to little more than a wrist-slap.
Re: (Score:1)
The iOS ecosystem is more locked down than other tech products. Android has the option of third-party app stores. Windows can install software from any vendor. Linux can be installed on Chromebooks. Steam keys can be generated to be sold on other storefronts.
Re: (Score:1)
And you'd be wrong. Apple's share is less than 20% [statcounter.com].
None of the government's business.
Re: Their rules explicitly ban (Score:1)
You might not agree but that doesn't change the fact that the way the laws work they do have a 100 % monopoly in *the App Store* which is enough. This is like Microsoft banning Steam (except the Facebook app is with free games unlike Steam).
Re: Their rules explicitly ban (Score:1)
Facebook should advocate jailbreaking (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, Apple would retaliate by pulling Facebook and Messenger from the App Store, and then it will turn into a legal battle.
No, the right answer is for Facebook to just go ahead and sue Apple and get it over with. It's eventually going to reach that point; it's only a matter of time. They might as well save the six months of wasted engineering effort trying to find ways of coddling the App Store reviewers, and just have their lawyers call out Apple's blatant antitrust violation for what it is.
Re:Facebook should advocate jailbreaking (Score:4, Insightful)
Strange. Pulling Facebook and messenger from the app store seems to be a good tactic for Facebook to take. Apple needs Facebook a lot more than Facebook needs Apple.
Hearing the average user say "iPhones can't do Facebook", would send Tim Cook in to a panic attack.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook? Messenger? Shit, you need to go bigger. Remove Instagram. It'd be complete pandemonium among the "incfluencer" scene.
Re: (Score:2)
They won't do it since, it would be the end of Instagram. All the users will quickly go elsewhere and not come back.
Re: (Score:2)
You can use FB from its website still. Much safer too.
Re: (Score:2)
I do that as well, but it’s hard to post pictures on Instagram from Safari so it’s a non-starter. If it’s hard to post pics, what’s the point of Instagram?
So litigation? (Score:3)
I don't know if I care. I don't hold a Facebook game app to have any value to me and I don't have opinions on whether Apple is being rotten or not.
But I'm expecting this to end in litigation.
Re: (Score:2)
Give a man his own garden, swear nobody else touches it, and he'll do amazing things. Once you invite the public by force into his garden, he totally changes, it's no longer his. Apple just wants to keep things proudly under their name. If this turns out to be a bad idea; then google will prevail and apple will feel the bite out of their revenue. Fwiw I only buy iphones partly because I feel safe knowing the quality will never fall below apples great standards.
FWIW I don't buy iPhones because I'd rather make my own decisions.
Re: (Score:3)
Both of you and the OP have high UIDs and sound like bots trying to mine mod points.
You might not be a bot, but you sure as hell don't demonstrate that you think for yourself with a comment like that.
Re: (Score:3)
Give a man his own garden, swear nobody else touches it, and he'll do amazing things. Once you invite the public by force into his garden
...his garden remains completely intact and any amazing things in it will remain the same, except for people having a choice of gardens now.
Re: (Score:2)
Give a man his own garden, swear nobody else touches it, and he'll do amazing things. Once you invite the public by force into his garden
He was just performing mental gymnastics to try to justify why he wants someone else deciding what software he should run.
...his garden remains completely intact and any amazing things in it will remain the same, except for people having a choice of gardens now.
Pretty much.
Re: I actually like the idea of a walled garden (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I actually like the idea of a walled garden (Score:1)
Why not just do through web? (Score:4, Insightful)
If all the games are HTML5 anyway, why does Facebook even need an app for this?
I am kind of with Apple on making some effort to stop lot of crapware that is just a wrapper around a purely web driven UI. That is not something I want to have in the App Store.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why not just do through web? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, that was supposed to be the entirety of the 'app store'. Like Firefox OS later, iOS apps were all supposed to be built on web technologies.
We could debate if this was just Apple buying time or if they caved to pressure, but that's what they originally pushed.
It's actually not bad. I'll bet you've played games and used apps that were essentially packaged websites without even knowing it. There were quite a few on the Blackberry Playbook, for example, that people were really surprised to discover were web apps. Fancy 3D games running at 60fps even. That was eons ago in internet time, so imagine how well things would work now?
Hell, even my dramatically under-powered Firefox OS phone outperformed similarly spec'd android phones or the time, and everything user facing was pure js/html/css. Amazingly, the phone actually got faster with each update. By the end, even it was running 3D games at playable frame rates.
I guess my point is that web apps aren't the slow and clunky things they were in 2008 even as early as 2010. Apple knows this as well as I do, but they still don't want web apps because it means giving up their app store monopoly.
I've been an advocate for web apps for about as long as they've been around. With a standard app package, you could freely move between platforms. Not just iOS and Android, but limitless others would be viable. I'd still be able to buy a Blackberry running BB10 (still unrivaled) or even a Windows or Ubuntu phone. Maybe something shockingly innovative that doesn't stand a chance without access to the popular apps.
I am kind of with Apple on making some effort to stop lot of crapware
Have you seen the app store? It's mostly crap. Just like every other app store. It's the natural result of the weird 'number of apps' war a while back. Besides, Apple is only looking to protect their bottom line. They don't care about protecting you from playing dull facebook games.
Native dev was always there, and always planned. (Score:1)
We could debate if this was just Apple buying time or if they caved to pressure, but that's what they originally pushed.
No, you really can't; the API's for "real" app development were visible to reverse decompilation even as they launched the web solution to start with, I know because I was working on apps using them. It was clear it was all going to be a public for native API development before too long.
It's not like the public facing API just pops out overnight, it takes some thought as to what you want
Re: (Score:2)
I absolutely can tell, every time.
If you were wrong, how would you know?
Re: (Score:3)
when all an app does, is thinly wrap a web browser without exception it is crappy to use, and doesn't really integrate with the system the way a native app should.
You're probably thinking just about the flood of apps made by those "turn your website instantly in to an app" services from a decade ago. They are not representative of what was possible. Those were really only a problem because, for reasons beyond me, every website thought it needed an app. There were even idiots heralding the end of the web and the rise of apps! It was a very stupid time.
So I figure you're stuck in the past. Poor performance and "integration" (which I will not unpack) were never r
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually not bad. I'll bet you've played games and used apps that were essentially packaged websites without even knowing it. There were quite a few on the Blackberry Playbook, for example, that people were really surprised to discover were web apps. Fancy 3D games running at 60fps even. That was eons ago in internet time, so imagine how well things would work now?
That's true, some of the best looking apps out there are HTML native apps.
Re: (Score:2)
You still can to this day - iOS still supports "web apps" to be developed. They're effectively just bookmarks run inside a browser container but they have icons and everything on the launcher.
And Apple has no oversight or review of this. All you have to do is load the webpage in Safari and have a little thing that shows how to actually do it. Many web stores did th
It's our fault (Score:2)
Well, not my fault specifically, but developers in general. Apple gave us a choice, and we chased after easy money and killed much less oppressive platforms in the process.
Now we've got a new Microsoft on our hands, but with a lot more money.
I delete resumes sent to me in 'pages' format. You should do the same. It's time to rebel.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, not my fault specifically, but developers in general. Apple gave us a choice, and we chased after easy money and killed much less oppressive platforms in the process.
Now we've got a new Microsoft on our hands, but with a lot more money.
I delete resumes sent to me in 'pages' format. You should do the same. It's time to rebel.
In all seriousness though, Apple's customers are not developers. It's the people that buy iPhones/etc. They didn't have to allow 3rd party apps at all.
At least Apple GAVE Facebook a reason (Score:1)
Which is more than you can say for Google. Whenever something triggers Google Play AI's automated wrath, it's a merciless judge, jury, and digital executioner unless you can muster enough attention via social media to get the attention & pity of someone at Google who can internally escalate it.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, Android devices permit sideloading. While that won't let the average app developer compete with others, Facebook is big enough to distribute their own apps without them being in an official app store. But since Apple devices don't allow that (except once jailbroken, which statistically no one does) that's simply not an option here.
Facebook might just be the litigant to force Apple to permit sideloading.
Stay true to your lack of ethics apple (Score:2, Funny)
Mixed emotions ... (Score:2)
Watching your ex-wife's lawyer back off a cliff in your new Mercedes.
fuck off and die (Score:2)
facebook TOS fights Apple TOS about bullshit.
And nobody cares.