Comment by evancoop
4 years ago
It seems like this discussion should be raised up a level. We can debate the merits of the app itself, but then that leads to opposing, valid arguments. The app's creator can assert the numerous beneficial uses of the app. Detractors can note the potential for misuse/abuse. Neither is necessarily a winning argument in an objective sense. And thus, we need some arbiter. In this case, that arbiter is Apple, who in this case, must anger some subset of the people on this thread.
So really, the debate is "who is a valid arbiter?" On what basis should the authority to deny access to a platform/market be granted or revoked? It seems that discussion is, to date, wholly inadequate.
If Apple did not retain such tight control over iOS app distribution (and considerably looser controls over Mac app distribution), then they would still have a moral obligation to help their customers defend against malware. And this application is definitely close enough to being malware that Apple would have to assess it as a potential threat and at least consider the possibility of blocking it.
You can't exclude Apple from having to make a judgement call here unless you want Apple to be thoroughly hands-off about security and privacy concerns to an extent that was really harmful to Microsoft's reputation back when they weren't taking security at all seriously.