3 ms·
Well that article certainly wears its editorial slant on its sleeve. I'm not really seeing the problem here; Apple isn't interested in selling, or giving away,
by msbarnett 16y ago
Well that article certainly wears its editorial slant on its sleeve.
I'm not really seeing the problem here; Apple isn't interested in selling, or giving away, in-progress beta apps or apps which exhibit obvious bugs because they want to maintain a certain quality of experience for people who use their store.
If Apple isn't interested in distributing your app, that's their prerogative. You're not entitled to it, and you certainly don't need it; Firefox has been doing just fine distributing their software through their own servers. They're free to continue doing so.
Nordstroms isn't interested in selling my janky, lumpy, hand-carved ash trays either, but that hardly makes them tyrants. They're just maintaining their store's brand.
- ed 16y agoBut Nordstroms doesn't own the city. Apple does. When all roads lead to the local men's department, yeah I'd be concerned with which products do, and don't make the cut. No kexts? Seriously? No outside updates? Can't wait for the first app store 0-day.
- msbarnett 16y ago> But Nordstroms doesn't own the city. Apple does. Er, no they don't. This is about the completely optional Mac App Store. To extend the metaphor, there's a Macy's next door and a Farmer's Market across the street.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- ed 16y agoMaybe it's time to step away from the metaphor. Just so we're clear I'm referring to the operating system -- the thing on which the store is built. It is, quite literally, owned by Apple.