4 ms·

I just don’t think the distinction is actually as clear as you describe it. Most of these apps are clients for a server-based product that you’re paying for. On

by baddox 6y ago

I just don’t think the distinction is actually as clear as you describe it. Most of these apps are clients for a server-based product that you’re paying for. One could argue that the Netflix app isn’t the product, it’s just a video player that you use to connect to the server that you’re paying to have access to. If Netflix just exposed .mp4 links in a web browser, then it would work fine in Safari on an iPhone. Or imagine a cloud-based e-book service that you can just SSH into. Should Apple allow apps marketed simply as SSH clients, but not allow an SSH client branded with that e-book service?

parsimo2010 6y ago
I addressed this. It's not a watertight mathematically provable law, but I think that with the majority of apps, a reasonable person making a good faith effort would have the same conclusion as me. I said if it's the only realistic alternative is to use an app or browser. I also said that the product might "live" on a server, but if you can only access it via app or browser then the product is an app. Most of these products are not clients. A client is something like an RSS reader, where one company makes app but interact with services/products from other companies. Netflix does not sell you a subscription to watch movies and then allow you to watch it with third-party apps. They do not expose .mp4 files, so saying "if they did this" isn't relevant. They try their hardest to force you to watch with their app. Overall, your arguments are silly. People have common sense and can use it. Using misdirection in your words doesn't change what the functionality of the product is. Coming up with strange corner cases that don't exist and aren't viable products aren't good examples. Until an actual commercial e-book service that functions through SSH exists then Apple doesn't need to waste their time addressing it.
- baddox 6y ago
  I'm not disputing the fact that, barring some controversial edge cases, most people could probably agree on the classification. My point is that Apple clearly appears to be claiming that there are some very clear rules that are followed strictly without any personal judgement about any particular app or company. A lot of their PR about this stuff has been of the form "we're not making any judgments about you, we're just following the rules" (never mind that it's their rules in the first place). But I think that's pretty clearly not the case, and moreover, I think people might be just as upset if Apple's policies said "we just use our common sense to classify apps and determine which features they can use on our platform" and then appeared to apply those determinations inconsistently.

by baddox 6y ago

parsimo2010 6y ago

I addressed this. It's not a watertight mathematically provable law, but I think that with the majority of apps, a reasonable person making a good faith effort would have the same conclusion as me. I said if it's the only realistic alternative is to use an app or browser. I also said that the product might "live" on a server, but if you can only access it via app or browser then the product is an app. Most of these products are not clients. A client is something like an RSS reader, where one company makes app but interact with services/products from other companies. Netflix does not sell you a subscription to watch movies and then allow you to watch it with third-party apps. They do not expose .mp4 files, so saying "if they did this" isn't relevant. They try their hardest to force you to watch with their app. Overall, your arguments are silly. People have common sense and can use it. Using misdirection in your words doesn't change what the functionality of the product is. Coming up with strange corner cases that don't exist and aren't viable products aren't good examples. Until an actual commercial e-book service that functions through SSH exists then Apple doesn't need to waste their time addressing it.

baddox 6y ago
I'm not disputing the fact that, barring some controversial edge cases, most people could probably agree on the classification. My point is that Apple clearly appears to be claiming that there are some very clear rules that are followed strictly without any personal judgement about any particular app or company. A lot of their PR about this stuff has been of the form "we're not making any judgments about you, we're just following the rules" (never mind that it's their rules in the first place). But I think that's pretty clearly not the case, and moreover, I think people might be just as upset if Apple's policies said "we just use our common sense to classify apps and determine which features they can use on our platform" and then appeared to apply those determinations inconsistently.