User opt-in does not excuse violating Apple’s terms of use. Google _likely_ did not get Apple’s opt-in for this approach. If they did not, they will _likely_ see their enterprise certificate terminated for precisely the same reason.
Sure this particular app is debatable.. but I have also worked in the music streaming industry. While being super respectful of the users, we still have sometimes had to wait for months for Apple's approval.
Having a single agent being able to gatekeep what you can install on your phone at their own discretion is an issue since there will always be the temptation to prevent any competitor from getting in your space.
As I understand it, it’s because the apps were being distributed using a method that is supposed to be used only inside the company. Like for beta testing software, or for in-house applications used by employees only. Anything going to the general public is supposed to go through the App Store under Apple’s terms and conditions.
It's their platform, they can choose the rules behind app distribution. They chose to allow it through methods controlled by themselves. If a third party wants to distribute apps, then they have to abide by the terms set by Apple.
You're basically saying you like Blockbuster video because there's no porn and they only have the "edited for the Airlines" versions of movies.
Great, but other people would like to use their device for whatever they want.
Yes, I know you'll say "so buy a device from someone else". I don't agree with that anymore than I think Ford should be able to make a car you're not allowed to drive anywhere Ford says your not. If Ford did that I don't think the answer should be, "if you want to drive other places buy a car from someone else". IMO the answer should be it's illegal for Ford to control my car to that level.
I'm hoping Apple loses the case against their monopoly on the App store (although given the details of the case I don't think this particular case will succeed so I'll have to wait for another)
You only buying Nike shoes does not require that all other companies are banned from selling shoes, you only eating McDonald's burgers does not require all other restaurants to be closed, and you only buying software through Apple does not require that there is no other ways to install software either, that's just authoritarian bullshit.
You are not playing. You are presenting arguments and attempting to sway opinion.
I’ll ask directly: do you not stand behind the arguments you’re making?
You seem not to understand the concept of Devil's Advocate, while the person you responded to clearly does.
It's only the argument that counts. A person is thereby shielded from association with the argument and does not need to show their real intent.
We're a large NFP but not a particularly large organization so I'm not sure if we get preferential treatment but our business lead has a direct point of contact with an App Store representative and has used it to get extended information about and, from our perspective, force through Apps releases stuck in review.
He isn't the type of person to sit idly by when a process is taking an abnormal amount of time so part of me thinks it isn't a case of preferential treatment but rather the squeaky wheel getting the grease.
I'm sure having someone he can get on a phone and hold accountable goes a long way. I'm still unclear how he managed that.