Hacker News Reader

Comment by wbronitsky | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

View on HN

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