gc_uk

nicholfd said:

gc_uk said:

Did you support Apple denying their users access to alternative stores on the users devices? Do you use any of the applications thrown off the App Store? If the answer to either question is no, you aren’t part of the group I’m commenting on. 

YES - Apples platform, Apple's rules.  Don't like it, build your own or use a different one.

YOU - Name the apps removed from Apple's App Store that you use and have issue with Apple removing them!  If you name any at all (which I doubt), I would bet they all violated the terms of the contract they agreed to, or local law, when they published the app on Apple's App Store. 

As has been pointed out previously, if you have the ability to build your own it’s irrelevant because the option to install from another source isn’t an option. 

chadbag said:

launfall said:

gc_uk said:

I wonder how people who defended Apple for not allowing applications being installed from different App Stores feel now the apps for the social media platforms they love are being kicked off the store?

I feel fine about it. It's about time apps that support lies and insurrection are thrown out. 

I didn’t realize Twitter, Facebook, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, etc have been thrown off the App Store.  

Why should it matter, if people can choose to install apps from a difference source? If an app doesn’t comply with Apple’s rules, nobody needs to call for limits on Apple’s controls as a gatekeeper to be investigated. You just install the app from another source. 

nicholfd said:

gc_uk said:

I wonder how people who defended Apple for not allowing applications being installed from different App Stores feel now the apps for the social media platforms they love are being kicked off the store?

LOL - the "social media platform" you are referring violated Apple's terms of agreement.  Read up on contracts.  You agree to them and you either follow them or you suffer the consequence - "being kicked off".

You’re missing the point of my post, again. This seems to be a theme with you? If apple’s customers were free to install apps from a source other than the Apple App Store, why should it matter if an app is approved by Apple or not? If they can distribute it themselves without using the App Store then Apple’s rules aren’t being violated and people can choose if they want to use the app or not. 

nicholfd said:

gc_uk said:

crosslad said:

Should Amazon be told to let manufacturers sell their products on Amazon free of charge?  If you want to sell your goods in someone’s store you have to give them the opportunity to make a profit. 

That’s a straw man argument. The question ought to be why are Apple allowed to prevent other companies from selling items on their own platforms and the price they can charge. 

You answered your own question, "on their own platform".  Apple developed, supports and provides "their own platform".  Their platform, their rules.  Don't like them, make your own or use some other "platform".

You’ve misread what I wrote or misunderstood the meaning. I’m referring to Epic providing a store front not connected to the App Store or companies choosing to distribute apps by means other than the App Store under Apple’s control. If a company wants to provide payment services using their own platform, why is that of concern to Apple? Do Amazon give Apple a 30% cut for all sales made through their Amazon app?

I wonder how people who defended Apple for not allowing applications being installed from different App Stores feel now the apps for the social media platforms they love are being kicked off the store?