> If customers really value real, safe drugs, even if there's multiple drug suppliers (some offering fake, unsafe drugs), people should still go to a pharmacy?
> It seems like a decision that they shouldn't have to make.
> Will people not be able to distinguish between safe drugs and fake unsafe drugs?
> They've never had to do it before.
> If customers really value real, safe drugs, even if there's multiple drug suppliers (some offering fake, unsafe drugs), people should still go to a pharmacy?
That shouldn't be Apple problem, we have governments for that.
> Will people not be able to distinguish between safe drugs and fake unsafe drugs
That shouldn't be our concern, we as the supplier of the market place should only worry about abiding to the law and report those that don't when they use our system
If they don't use our system, it shouldn't be our responsibility.
But Tim Cook is not on trial for selling illegal drugs, he's trying to make Apple look like the only possible guardian of user's safety. Because it's in Apple interests, not because it's best for users (I mean that Tim Cook can't possibly know if Epic store would be less safe than theirs, he - admittedly - never made that experiment)
Given the fast pace that technology moves at, and the comparatively-slow pace at which government / legislation works, this may not be the best move in terms of keeping progress going. Especially since governments are notoriously bad at understanding tech.
In this case in particular Apple is not doing the government's job because government is bad at understanding tech, it's not about progress, it's about control.
They are betting, IMO, on the fact that politics and laws have a lot of inertia and are slow at adapting to new fringe interpretations of the norms.
They already did - they choose iOS over Android / other possibilities.
Just like the internet, it’s now flooded by crap.
I think they consider the massive success of the iPhone and App Store proof of that.
Without actually asking people, how are sales numbers proof that buyers care a lot about any specific aspect of the product?
And why is everyone forgetting that obviously Apple does ask people and run focus groups, they know very well what their customers are most interested in.
ignoring the for-profit corp vs govt regulatory body statutory difference, there isn't much different in operation.
I don't think I even need to say anything to point out how bad of an argument it is.
Given we have seen real malware like Xcodeghost that has successfully breached apples own App Store review process, he clearly has a point. Removing all binaries compiled with Xcodeghost to protect consumers would have been harder with multiple stores hosting binaries for sale vs one, and is indeed an example of one benefit of the single storefront. Incidentally, the internal emails from Apple regarding handling the Xcodeghost problem have arguably been some of the most interesting documents we’ve seen in this trial.
There are trade offs here, and while one option may appear to be fairer it is not going to be a free lunch. There’s always issues with software analogies if you dig too deeply too!