Hacker News Reader

Comment by ocdtrekkie | Hacker News Reader

Presumably control of iOS means Apple would never lose the ability to distrust/remove a given store and apps installed with it. But Apple would need to be under clear regulation that it could not do so for a revenue-related reason.

Presumably a store openly promoting pirated apps would be a reason, and a store which has significant malware problems, could both be compelling reasons to permit Apple to do this, but I would go so far as to suggest they should be required to involve the legal system somehow in the process, rather than make a unilateral call.

View on HN

> it could not do so for a revenue-related reason

While this might sound good, this would be impossible to enforce in practice, as everything a company does is revenue-related. Any rules the app store or iOS have are directly related to revenue by definition.

For example, if Apple allowed boundless permissions and tons of buggy apps, their revenue would probably decrease. This issue is harder to regulate than it first seems.

Yes, technically, "everything a company does is revenue-related". However, you can realistically draw a line sonewhere between blocking illegal material (pirated/malware) and blocking apps that don't pay Apple their 30%. My comment was not intended to be the exact legalese that would be required for such a limitation, but you can probably gather roughly where I draw the line from it.

I want to point out that the crux of my argument, the very reason I posted, was that I could not "draw the line" from the previous argument. There is no actual rebuttal or new information in the reply, just a restatement of the previous point.

My point was that everything a company does is revenue related, and thus we cannot draw some imaginary line between things that are "more" or "less" revenue related. Restating that we can doesn't move us forward. I would be interested to hear how we can separate some revenue related reasons from others.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com