> But isn't that's the case Pebble is making here?
>> No, the case they are making is that Apple is making things worse for Apple users. They haven't done anything to effect the Android watch experience.
What? Pebble is making the case that Apple is making things worse for Pebble users on iOS devices than for Apple users on iOS devices.
That's the case.
Android Wear is in the same boat as Pebble here.
> They create a market
>> They didn't create a market in this case. They created a product, which is the Apple Watch.
They created a product to sell in the market they already created, because an iOS user is free to buy any competing watch he wants, but Apple sets the rules for those competitors while setting other rules for itself.
> Apple actually acts as a gatekeeper to the smart watch market when used with their devices
>> Wrong- they act as a gatekeeper to developers, not to users.
What's wrong? What users? Thanks for confirming what I wrote.
You agree that Apple acts as a gatekeeper to developers, which means that they control access to the market these developers are trying to reach.
> If the new Pebble's core product was their app, then all of this would indeed be anticompetitive behavior
For a Smart watch, Apple requires that the core product of competitors must involve an App, and Apple is the gatekeeper for that App and thus also the gatekeeper of the competing watch-product.
Their own product requires no dedicated App and can offer features of iOS not accessible to competitors
>> No, the case they are making is that Apple is making things worse for Apple users. They haven't done anything to effect the Android watch experience.
What? Pebble is making the case that Apple is making things worse for Pebble users on iOS devices than for Apple users on iOS devices. That's the case. Android Wear is in the same boat as Pebble here.
> They create a market
>> They didn't create a market in this case. They created a product, which is the Apple Watch.
They created a product to sell in the market they already created, because an iOS user is free to buy any competing watch he wants, but Apple sets the rules for those competitors while setting other rules for itself.
> Apple actually acts as a gatekeeper to the smart watch market when used with their devices
>> Wrong- they act as a gatekeeper to developers, not to users.
What's wrong? What users? Thanks for confirming what I wrote. You agree that Apple acts as a gatekeeper to developers, which means that they control access to the market these developers are trying to reach.
> If the new Pebble's core product was their app, then all of this would indeed be anticompetitive behavior
For a Smart watch, Apple requires that the core product of competitors must involve an App, and Apple is the gatekeeper for that App and thus also the gatekeeper of the competing watch-product.
Their own product requires no dedicated App and can offer features of iOS not accessible to competitors