[can16358p]

Not to play devil's advocate here and also IANAL but:

If (as as it is) Apple is still controlling apps via notarizarion/digitally signing apps of and recognizing developers, and if the app is developed for something that would land Apple in legal trouble (e.g. it makes it easy to freely and illegally download music and Apple also has legal contracts with record labels as they have Apple Music, and not only legal but it also affects Apple's own music revenue too) as the app has passed explicit notarization of Apple (in other words: Apple "knowlingly" allowed them and greenlighted them by notarizing the app), wouldn't it cause legal trouble for Apple?

For that, it's the logical behavior for a company like Apple to stop allowing the app.

Again, I'm not supporting it, but I can imagine where it's coming from and that makes sense from a business perspective as torrenting on mobile has almost no legal use cases. We all know you have not installed it to download your favorite Linux distro to your iPhone.

[bmandale]

If the ability to remove apps obligates them to remove apps, then that is a strong argument for them not to have the ability to remove apps.

It also almost certainly doesn't so obligate them. They aren't acting as an intermediary, they are just incidentally signing the app. The app signing certifies in the first place that they checked the documents of the app devs, and in the second place that they haven't decided to remove the app. But removing the app is an action, not an inaction, they can't be compelled to take it. It would be like the record label saying I had to stop a bootlegger I happened to observe while I was out for a walk.

[like_any_other]

Legally that sounds about right, but morally, your argument does nothing to defend Apple. They pioneered stealing autonomy from their users. They know governments abuse this [1,2,3]. Yet they prefer to profit off keeping their users prisoner, than give them control of the devices they paid for.

Maybe the first time you chain a man to a tree, you can plead ignorance, that you didn't know wolves would come eat him at night. But by the 100th time, you're as guilty as the wolves.

[1] Apple pulls app used to track Hong Kong police, Cook defends move - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests-apple-i...

[2] Apple removes nearly 100 VPNs used by Russians to bypass censorship - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41712728

[3] Apple's Cooperation with Authoritarian Governments - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26644216

[can16358p]

Actually I didn't mean anything that contradicts your comment. I do agree with what you are saying.

I don't think we should be expecting moral values from any company over a certain size, be it Apple, Google, or anything else. They "care" about privacy as long as they profit from it directly as device/service sales or indirectly with brand value/trust/PR.

[like_any_other]

> Actually I didn't mean anything that contradicts your comment.

Likewise.

[cnst]

And, to clarify, the problem here is not that the company collaborates with governments in policing their own stores, the problem is that they do NOT allow you using any alternative stores.

[ronsor]

1. Signing apps does not constitute endorsement. Re-read the developer agreement.

2. Apple's obligations under law supersede their agreements with any record labels.

[const_cast]

This is a "have your cake and eat it too" problem.

IMO you can either be a dumb marketplace with common sense moderating and not be responsible for the content on your marketplace, or you can be a curated and secure marketplace, in which case you must necessarily be responsible for the content on it.

This is a legal hole.

[can16358p]

1. Not endorsement, but at least a recognition of some sort that Apple recognized the dev and the app and allowed them to publish this app (regardless of which store).

2. AFAIK Apple isn't doing anything illegal by pulling out this app. Malicious compliance? Perhaps. Illegal? Nope. If Apple doesn't do this, then it would indeed attract legal issues due to the first point.

[mathiaspoint]

It's proof that they're not complying with the DMA.

[dmix]

I don’t think people are blaming Apple here

[cnst]

You're wrong. We are blaming Apple, because they prohibit us from installing the apps we want on devices we own.

[viktorcode]

That would be a valid argument if Apple mislead you into buying iPhone under the false premise of „you can install everything you want“. Instead, you either chose to blame Apple for making your phone work exactly as it was intended, or, as customary on the internet, you are blaming Apple for designing device you don’t even own against your expectations of how they should do it.

[const_cast]

It can still be a valid argument - you're not allowed to just sell whatever if you tell people before hand. Disclaimers aren't legal silver bullets.

[Rohansi]

Do you really own your device if Apple has control over what you can use it for?

[simondotau]

To be precise, it's not the hardware but rather Apple's operating system software which is restricting what software applications can run on your device. Do you really own the iOS operating system? No.

I don't know precisely where the line is between owning the literal physical atoms and not owning the literal binary blobs of software, but agree or not, it's well understood that buying the right to use software is not synonymous with owning the software. I feel like the hardware–software distinction is a difficult one to square in the context of "owning an iPhone."

Does owning the atoms of your phone entitle you to a mechanism for side-loading your own operating system binaries? I think so. If you buy hardware, there should be a reasonable mechanism for wholesale replacing the supplied operating system software with any alternative you like. Should Apple be required to document how any of hardware works? On that I'm ambivalent but I lean towards yes. But as for how iOS works, I personally think that's regrettably out of scope, because owning the hardware isn't the same as owning the software.

[Rohansi]

> it's not the hardware but rather Apple's operating system software which is restricting what software applications can run on your device

I disagree - the restrictions also apply at the hardware level. The entire boot process is locked down to prevent people from running their own OS on the hardware. It's nothing like Macs where Asahi Linux exists as an option. If anyone ever discovered how to bypass the restrictions you can count on Apple to fix it.

[simondotau]

With respect to allowing people to run their own OS, if you read my post in full, you’d see that we are in complete agreement.

But it’s pretty unambiguous that any restrictions are software, not hardware. It’s just lower level software that runs earlier in the boot/system bring-up process.

[AnthonyMouse]

Isn't that the point? People would like to own an Apple product instead of paying for it and then never getting the keys.

[Rohansi]

The problem with that expectation is Apple never gave anyone the keys before. That decision is not hurting them so why would they change?

[const_cast]

Because we can make them change, lol. Why do companies do anything? Because of laws.

We're not powerless serfs, we can change the rules and we do it all the time.