This is silly. They’re not seperately approving every app on my VNC server either.
Terms of use, or laws don't have to be written in perfect logical consistency. The important thing is intent.
The intent is not to block things that resemble running an application remotely. The intent here is controlling everything that could possibly be sold/distributed as something resembling an application or game.
I see these kinds of comments a lot, where someone describes a rule or law, break it down to it's core components and declare it's illogical.
Generally laws are not enforced exactly by how they are written, but by their original intent. This is also why legal precedent and testing laws in court is so important.
I call bullshit, I think it's mostly just bad laws that become ridiculous when 'broken down'. If you want to convince me otherwise, demonstrate your claim using laws against murder (unambiguously good laws.)
There is no unambiguously good law because of the simple fact nothing is unambiguously good. Given billions of people and many years some ambiguous scenario is going to come up even around the most "obviously good/bad" things.
Treve was saying that anything becomes ridiculous when inspected closely enough. Even the core components.
You are saying that the extension to corner cases becomes ridiculous.
The extension can be ridiculous without the original core being ridiculous.
So you're saying a correct thing, but it's not relevant to the conversation that existed before your comment.
E.g. "murder is always illegal" is not true and a bad law/take on the concept. Expanding the law to include "murder is always illegal except when... <other laws>" is only unambiguous if <other laws> are unambiguous. I don't think I need to take it further to explain justifiable homicide isn't unambiguously black and white or always possible to rule on without looking at intent of the various laws and what happened.
Bringing that back to the original thing this is true of any concept or law, including reviewing some remote apps and not others based on what they are for not that they are remote. I'm not saying I agree the way Apple regulates these is good I'm just saying I agree the fact some remote apps are regulated and others aren't isn't proof alone the regulation is contradictory.
Sure! And if you look at the overall concept, it does not become meaningless. To get to meaninglessness requires you separate the two.
"Unambiguous" is a much much higher bar that we don't need to worry about. Something can be 5% ambiguous but still very meaningful.
> Bringing that back to the original thing this is true of any concept or law, including reviewing some remote apps and not others based on what they are for not that they are remote. I'm not saying I agree the way Apple regulates these is good I'm just saying I agree the fact some remote apps are regulated and others aren't isn't proof alone the regulation is contradictory.
It's not proof by itself, but if you can show that there's no good reason for the distinction then it's a strong mark against Apple.
I'm pretty sure you cannot do as I requested.
edit: maybe we want to define murder as killing someone who does not want to be killed. I would ask what you have to say about the "trolley problem". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
If you just boil it down to the actual question
You can pick one of:
1 random person dies, or
5 random people die.
Which one do you choose?
The correct answer is obvious. The question is more interesting with more context.
I think that’s pretty much untrue. Laws are enforced exactly as written. Where the judges come in is the interpretation of what was written. If that’s in line with the intent then that’s great, but I very much doubt that’s always the case.
They regulate the store, not the web.
Replace websites with apps and open web with PCs and you get the usual defence many people on HN make about Apple's practices in App Store.
I don’t fully agree with Apple’s decision but I do understand it and recognise that it’s an awkward intersection between selling software and access to software that’s running elsewhere.
VNC is used for machine you already own, so that’s why it’s allowed.