4 ms·

Except apple is not society. It is not democracy. It's a for profit company, and can do whatever it wants. It is in no way entitled to be fair. If you don't wa

Except apple is not society. It is not democracy. It's a for profit company, and can do whatever it wants. It is in no way entitled to be fair. If you don't want it to behave this way, as a consumer or developer, you just have to choose to not deal with it. But you don't want to, because it makes you money and makes you life more comfortable in some way. What it means is that you value money/confort more than been respected by this company. Accept this is what you choose and don't bitch about it, this is dishonest. You can't have it both way.

bambax 10y ago
Society can decide what behavior is allowed and what isn't. Just because a company is a company doesn't mean it's out of reach of judicial rules. A company can't dump chemicals in any river without oversight; it could be compelled to accept an appeals process when terminating a contract with a developer.
- sametmax 10y ago
  But what apple is doing is not currently illegal. Just highly disrespectful. Now we can act as a society to make it illegal, but this won't happen.
  - fauigerzigerk 10y ago
    >Now we can act as a society to make it illegal, but this won't happen. Certainly not if everyone heeds your advice to "Accept this is what you choose and don't bitch about it". Bitching about stuff is a necessary part of the democratic process.
    - sametmax 10y ago
      No, debating, finding solution and acting is part of the democratic process. Bitching is just acting like the victim you aren't, since it's just the consequence of your choices. There will always be apple like players. Either you do something about it, or you don't.
      - fauigerzigerk 10y ago
        "Bitching" is just your arbitrary choice of words for something that is a completely normal part of debating the issue.
  - briandear 10y ago
    Making this illegal is a dangerous slippery slope. It could end up like France where firing an employee can be a multi year process and the result-- a shortage of permanent contract employment because employers fear being stuck with an employee forever. Making this illegal would result in an arduous approval process just to join a marketplace. Additionally it could result in bad actors being unable to be expelled from a market while the legal process unfolds. That could result in a net loss to consumers. Imagine a malware developer -- Apple can't evict them quickly because they'd have to perform extra legal investigation so they wouldn't get in trouble for acting too quickly.
    - sametmax 10y ago
      What you are saying is "to avoid making it inconvenient for apple, we shall let them the right do juge people guilty unless proven innocent, and not give any feedback about it". There is a reason we don't accept that for our law system. We currently accept that from companies, and I don't think it's a good idea. But don't get me wrong. I don't think going legal is the right way to go. I think either you accept it, and enjoy the benefits of playing with apple and stop complaining, or you don't accept it, complain AND follow the complaining with action such as putting your business elsewhere.
- briandear 10y ago
  These aren't even in the same league of similarity. Dumping chemicals harms society -- even those who are not participating in a particular market. Apple dumping a dev? Not even remotely close. A company should have the right to terminate a business arrangement provided the terms of the contract governing such an arrangement are upheld. Imagine it this way: you are a contract developer, should you have no right to terminate a contract with a client under the terms of the agreement? Almost every contract I'be ever signed as a developer has some form of "either party can terminate this agree with <some days> notice." From what I am reading here, we want to hold Apple to different rules than the ones we ourselves routinely follow? I get it: Apple should give the guy an explanation. However making laws to require it? That's absurd. Should there be a law that when a girl (or guy) doesn't accept a dinner invitation that they provide a valid reason? That's really what this comes down to. And no, Apple isn't a monopoly. This company can still sell their products, just not at that particular store. I feel bad for the situation, but extending government power into private business relationships is a bad idea. Contract law already covers this. Society isn't harmed by this company not being able to sell on the App Store. This isn't dumping chemicals into rivers or denying service based on skin color. If the developer was wronged, he could file a lawsuit. However given that the contracts governing the relationship were known in advance, the situation is just the realization of the risks inherent in doing business.
  - sametmax 10y ago
    > the situation is just the realization of the risks inherent in doing business. Precisely. You signed the contract. You could have not done so, but you wanted the money. And you wanted it to come from this source, because this source fits some of your needs. So you decided it was worth putting your life into their hands, and sometime, you loose. It sucks, but you are half responsible.
CamperBob2 10y ago
Any unavoidable monopoly is indistinguishable from a government. Whether Apple has reached that point is obviously debatable -- I think most people would say 'No.' But still: their goal is to be the only game in town, and if they reach that goal, we will have to change the rules. When a corporation behaves this way, it needs to hurt.

bambax 10y ago

Society can decide what behavior is allowed and what isn't. Just because a company is a company doesn't mean it's out of reach of judicial rules. A company can't dump chemicals in any river without oversight; it could be compelled to accept an appeals process when terminating a contract with a developer.

sametmax 10y ago
But what apple is doing is not currently illegal. Just highly disrespectful. Now we can act as a society to make it illegal, but this won't happen.
- fauigerzigerk 10y ago
  >Now we can act as a society to make it illegal, but this won't happen. Certainly not if everyone heeds your advice to "Accept this is what you choose and don't bitch about it". Bitching about stuff is a necessary part of the democratic process.
  - sametmax 10y ago
    No, debating, finding solution and acting is part of the democratic process. Bitching is just acting like the victim you aren't, since it's just the consequence of your choices. There will always be apple like players. Either you do something about it, or you don't.
    - fauigerzigerk 10y ago
      "Bitching" is just your arbitrary choice of words for something that is a completely normal part of debating the issue.
- briandear 10y ago
  Making this illegal is a dangerous slippery slope. It could end up like France where firing an employee can be a multi year process and the result-- a shortage of permanent contract employment because employers fear being stuck with an employee forever. Making this illegal would result in an arduous approval process just to join a marketplace. Additionally it could result in bad actors being unable to be expelled from a market while the legal process unfolds. That could result in a net loss to consumers. Imagine a malware developer -- Apple can't evict them quickly because they'd have to perform extra legal investigation so they wouldn't get in trouble for acting too quickly.
  - sametmax 10y ago
    What you are saying is "to avoid making it inconvenient for apple, we shall let them the right do juge people guilty unless proven innocent, and not give any feedback about it". There is a reason we don't accept that for our law system. We currently accept that from companies, and I don't think it's a good idea. But don't get me wrong. I don't think going legal is the right way to go. I think either you accept it, and enjoy the benefits of playing with apple and stop complaining, or you don't accept it, complain AND follow the complaining with action such as putting your business elsewhere.
briandear 10y ago
These aren't even in the same league of similarity. Dumping chemicals harms society -- even those who are not participating in a particular market. Apple dumping a dev? Not even remotely close. A company should have the right to terminate a business arrangement provided the terms of the contract governing such an arrangement are upheld. Imagine it this way: you are a contract developer, should you have no right to terminate a contract with a client under the terms of the agreement? Almost every contract I'be ever signed as a developer has some form of "either party can terminate this agree with <some days> notice." From what I am reading here, we want to hold Apple to different rules than the ones we ourselves routinely follow? I get it: Apple should give the guy an explanation. However making laws to require it? That's absurd. Should there be a law that when a girl (or guy) doesn't accept a dinner invitation that they provide a valid reason? That's really what this comes down to. And no, Apple isn't a monopoly. This company can still sell their products, just not at that particular store. I feel bad for the situation, but extending government power into private business relationships is a bad idea. Contract law already covers this. Society isn't harmed by this company not being able to sell on the App Store. This isn't dumping chemicals into rivers or denying service based on skin color. If the developer was wronged, he could file a lawsuit. However given that the contracts governing the relationship were known in advance, the situation is just the realization of the risks inherent in doing business.
- sametmax 10y ago
  > the situation is just the realization of the risks inherent in doing business. Precisely. You signed the contract. You could have not done so, but you wanted the money. And you wanted it to come from this source, because this source fits some of your needs. So you decided it was worth putting your life into their hands, and sometime, you loose. It sucks, but you are half responsible.

CamperBob2 10y ago

Any unavoidable monopoly is indistinguishable from a government. Whether Apple has reached that point is obviously debatable -- I think most people would say 'No.' But still: their goal is to be the only game in town, and if they reach that goal, we will have to change the rules. When a corporation behaves this way, it needs to hurt.