← Back to context

Comment by can16358p

8 months ago

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.

21 comments

can16358p

Reply
bmandale  8 months ago

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  8 months ago

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://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26644216

  • can16358p  8 months ago

    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.

  • cnst  8 months ago

    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  8 months ago

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  8 months ago

    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  8 months ago

    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.

dmix  8 months ago

I don’t think people are blaming Apple here

  • cnst  8 months ago

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

    • viktorcode  8 months ago

      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.

      1 reply →