Coffeehouse Thread

19 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Trust between Southwest and WP competitors?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    magicalclick

    In recent news, Southwest did not agree to have MS repackage their website into WP app. Sure it is more about consent and etc.. But, seeing them haven't make an app leaves the conspiracy that, they have off the record exclusive deal with WP competitors. If they want good app experience, they should made one, but, I doubt they are actually building it right now.

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    kettch

    @magicalclick: Personally, I think that repackaged web sites should be banned from the store altogether. There's a lot of them in the store, but I have the suspicion that very few people who use them can even tell the difference.

  • User profile image
    davewill

    , magicalclick wrote

    In recent news, Southwest did not agree to have MS repackage their website into WP app. Sure it is more about consent and etc.. But, seeing them haven't make an app leaves the conspiracy that, they have off the record exclusive deal with WP competitors. If they want good app experience, they should made one, but, I doubt they are actually building it right now.

    Where is the source for this Southwest news? I need to read it as I'd guess the issue isn't about WP but about a 3rd party using the name/image tied to Southwest.

  • User profile image
    bondsbw

    @kettch:  You know, Facebook was the same way on iOS and Android for a long time until they figured out that native code gave them a 300% improvement in speed.

    On the one hand, I'd say that it hurts the app maker to use a repackaged app.  On the other hand, choosing to do so with a very popular service can hurt the OS as well.  If, say, Facebook switched from HTML5 to native on iOS, but never did so on Android, it would give Apple an advantage in the market by being able to show off the speed comparison of a popular application.

    (Really, Microsoft needs app parity and IMHO could easily pony up some cash to the makers of the most popular apps that aren't on the WP8/RT stores yet.)

  • User profile image
    magicalclick

    @davewill:

    Here is my Bing skill.

    http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/gigaom/articles/2013_10_23_microsoft_pulls_windows_phone_webapp_after_failing_to_notify_content_owner_it_existed.html

    MS made bunch of Web Apps in the recent MS publication. And apparently some company prefer to take it out because they have suspicious off-the-record deal with someone else.

     

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    Bass

    I think it might be nice to ask for permission before you make apps with someone elses brand on them.

  • User profile image
    Bas

    @Bass: this. Doing this without any sort of consent is just weird.

  • User profile image
    wkempf

    I've not looked at any of them yet, but the description "WebApp" to me seems to indicate they are not much more than web browsers dedicated to a single site. If that's the case, I don't see why asking for permission is needed, nor why anyone would object to it. The only thing interesting to me here is the fact that these really violate Microsoft's own app policies. Seems like a bad idea to me.

  • User profile image
    Bas

    @wkempf: because most companies have pretty strict rules about how and when their logo and name can be used. Also the mobile experience might suck, and they'll receive complaints about their terrible "app", which they had absolutely nothing to do with.

  • User profile image
    davewill

    @magicalclick: Definitely a weird area.  Microsoft is calling the store app by a name of their control so it isn't that the Southwest name is being used on the app without Southwest's approval.  The content the app is presenting is publicly available content freely available to anyone. Going beyond just presentation, I'd presume it interacts with Southwest servers in a bi-directional manner or what is the point. Weird. It is essentially a one off browser.

  • User profile image
    TheJoe

    Is a web site and it's content only for direct use by users and their browser?  Or can third parties take that public information and deliver it to users in a different vehicle?  Kinda like recording a TV commercial and playing it in a theater.

    Clearly, MS is trying to create app traffic and spur independent development.

  • User profile image
    wkempf

    The description "WebApp" seems to suggest to me that it truly is just a browser, just one that's dedicated to a single site. Legally, there's NOTHING about that that is questionable. Now, the use of the logo in the tile/icon/whatever might be questionable... but if it's the logo used by the FavIcon for the site, I'm not sure there's even anything legally wrong there. If "the mobile experience might suck" that's a first party issue with their own site and "easily" remedied by themselves, so there's little room for complaint, much less legal action. Claiming they had "absolutely nothing to do with" it is simply wrong... it's their web site, they have everything to do with the experience. Effectively, Microsoft created a bunch of one off browsers, and that's it, the content is still solely under the control of the web site owners.

    @TheJoe, there is some debate about what web site content can be used for, but it sounds like in this case the debate is meaningless. These apps are just browsers, so the content is being used precisely as it was intended to be used. It may be odd that the browser is a dedicated browser, but it's still just a browser.

    Now, to be fair, I'm basing all of what I said on assumptions about what these apps do. I've not installed any of them myself, so I could be entirely wrong about them simply being dedicated browsers. I'm also not a lawyer, so I could be way off in my interpretation of what I know of the law in my own country, but it seems to be common sense to me. Any complaints I've seen raised thus far would apply to any browser, so I don't see how there can be legal reasons for any of this to not be above board... other than violating their own app policies and simple good taste.

  • User profile image
    Bas

    , wkempf wrote

    Claiming they had "absolutely nothing to do with" it is simply wrong... it's their web site, they have everything to do with the experience. 

    They didn't put it in the store. They have nothing to do with it. 

     

    As for favicons: the favicon is being used, by them, as the favicon. Using it for anything else (like an app icon) can very well be prohibited.

    Don't use other companies' logos or trademarks without their permission. It's a pretty simple and reasonable rule.

  • User profile image
    kettch

    , Bas wrote

    *snip*

    Don't use other companies' logos or trademarks without their permission. It's a pretty simple and reasonable rule.

    Then somebody also needs to do something about the hundreds of other repackaged mobile sites. Facebook and Pinterest seem to be the most popular, but there' s a lot of them out there that consist of nothing more than a dedicated browser a couple of shortcut buttons and an advertisement control.

  • User profile image
    Bass

    , kettch wrote

    *snip*

    Then somebody also needs to do something about the hundreds of other repackaged mobile sites. Facebook and Pinterest seem to be the most popular, but there' s a lot of them out there that consist of nothing more than a dedicated browser a couple of shortcut buttons and an advertisement control.


    Agreed. It's one thing legitimately using their API and building a better (or just different) experience then the mobile website, because you are adding value (still, you can't pretend to be Facebook or whatever, it needs to be clear that you are a 3rd party app). Simply taking their existing website, "converting" to an app and deceptively naming to confuse people all while putting your ad control on it is not an attempt at producing a legit app, it's an attempt at producing parasitic adware.

    Shitty apps like that exist on all the major platforms to some extent. I personally think it's tolerated because it increased the "app count" for marketing purposes. But once they discover that nobody gives a * about useless statistics like how many apps you have, but rather the quality of the apps, maybe they will crack down more on stuff like that?

  • User profile image
    kettch

    @Bass: Although, I think AT&T just did that with their own first-party app. They did an update for WP and it feels a lot like a mobile web site. The fact that every single piece of text can be selected is also a giveaway. However, it's their own app, so they can do what they want. I don't mind it, because they seem to still be using some local code to do things like caching settings. It also increases the chance that they'll maintain it, if they can provide the same mobile site across all devices.

  • User profile image
    magicalclick

    @Bass: I understand the quality argument. But given the choice of webapp and html, a lot of people will choose webapp. It is better looking than IE pin. Also most people don't know how to pin. Webapp is nothing at its core, but, still, a lot of people would choose it ignorantly or intentionally.

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    magicalclick

    @kettch: I like it. Consistent UI. And I have access to everything without the browser address bar and they tested it with IE, which makes their web compatible with IE by default. And I can keep my other IE tabs for myself because it isn't in IE, which is good.

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.