Maybe, but does that mean this app doesn't deserve to exist on user's computers if they so choose? Not sure why Apple has a say in that just because they have a massive advantage over every other dev on their platform.
back
1 comments
There can be different views on this, I guess.
Apple is known to like to exercise control and to keep their ecosystem closed (recall that Jobs was initially AGAINST the AppStore concept entirely, which was invented by someone else and now makes a ton of money for Apple).
Open systems with little control lead to a bazar like the various Linux distros with inconsistent-looking and buggy apps mixed with great apps - anything goes.
Imagine you are Apple and you want your AppStore to convey a professional and safe look and feel, you probably don't want 60,000 converter or image viewer app but a variety of tools, maybe 5-10 per category max, or it will be hard for users to navigate and tiring to explore.
> recall that Jobs was initially AGAINST the AppStore concept entirely…
Jobs was initially against allowing third-party native apps on the iPhone, but not App Store as a distribution mechanism. Once he relented on inviting ISVs to the profit party, the iTunes Store model was never in question.
I guess my disconnect is that the computer that a person owns isn't the same as a store that Apple runs and can carefully curate that runs on that computer. Combining those into one thing strikes me as dangerous, with not much upside. Everything you described can be true while allowing the user to use their computer how they want, it just doesn't make Apple as much money.