7 ms·

So rather than let consumers make educated choices, you'd rather Apple apply arbitrary guidelines to each app differently? Because that's what they've been doin

So rather than let consumers make educated choices, you'd rather Apple apply arbitrary guidelines to each app differently? Because that's what they've been doing. The app itself never was designed as a medical app, and is no different than any other "health" app that counted your jumping jacks. It doesn't make any health claims, and increases your awareness of a hand motion you make. It does nothing more.

askafriend 6y ago
> So rather than let consumers make educated choices I'm a consumer. I've decided I want Apple to arbitrate relationships for me - so yes. I pay a premium to enter their ecosystem because they make decisions that I've been happy with for decades. They've also made decisions that I'm not happy about but on balance, over the multi-decade relationship - I cede control to them and am happy to. I explicitly want them to. This is the same reason I stuck with HomeKit - I trusted Apple despite HomeKit having far fewer compatible devices than other smart home ecosystem due to more stringent and more expensive certification required of 3rd parties. A couple years later, HomeKit still isn't perfect but now people are dealing with the explosion of insecure, shoddy 3rd party smart home / IOT devices. Turns out HomeKit is more secure against those kind of vulnerabilities and Apple does things like force 3rd parties to adopt secure streaming APIs before allowing any streaming video products onto the platform (like video doorbells, as an example). It's a very different approach and I explicitly appreciate it at the cost of 3rd parties. The choice I've made as a consumer is that I want a platform that is closed off and top down. If I didn't like it, I would have gone to Android to enjoy the benefits of a platform with a different perspective.
- andrewmunsell 6y ago
  That's a totally valid opinion and I can respect that, and I have benefited from the "walled garden" approach myself. But as a developer, Apple seems to be going in a bad direction in terms of quality control. We clearly do not see a lot of the junk and malware they do reject, and I am 100% certain that their review process has screen many of this stuff out. But, there's numerous examples in the broader comment thread (and anti-trust investigations, etc.), that indicate they are being too heavy handed. That's entirely my opinion, though.

askafriend 6y ago

> So rather than let consumers make educated choices I'm a consumer. I've decided I want Apple to arbitrate relationships for me - so yes. I pay a premium to enter their ecosystem because they make decisions that I've been happy with for decades. They've also made decisions that I'm not happy about but on balance, over the multi-decade relationship - I cede control to them and am happy to. I explicitly want them to. This is the same reason I stuck with HomeKit - I trusted Apple despite HomeKit having far fewer compatible devices than other smart home ecosystem due to more stringent and more expensive certification required of 3rd parties. A couple years later, HomeKit still isn't perfect but now people are dealing with the explosion of insecure, shoddy 3rd party smart home / IOT devices. Turns out HomeKit is more secure against those kind of vulnerabilities and Apple does things like force 3rd parties to adopt secure streaming APIs before allowing any streaming video products onto the platform (like video doorbells, as an example). It's a very different approach and I explicitly appreciate it at the cost of 3rd parties. The choice I've made as a consumer is that I want a platform that is closed off and top down. If I didn't like it, I would have gone to Android to enjoy the benefits of a platform with a different perspective.

andrewmunsell 6y ago
That's a totally valid opinion and I can respect that, and I have benefited from the "walled garden" approach myself. But as a developer, Apple seems to be going in a bad direction in terms of quality control. We clearly do not see a lot of the junk and malware they do reject, and I am 100% certain that their review process has screen many of this stuff out. But, there's numerous examples in the broader comment thread (and anti-trust investigations, etc.), that indicate they are being too heavy handed. That's entirely my opinion, though.