3 ms·

I initially agreed, but after some thought I've changed my mind; it is appropriate. If you want an example of Apple not doing something quietly, consider how t

I initially agreed, but after some thought I've changed my mind; it is appropriate. If you want an example of Apple not doing something quietly, consider how they stopped carrying Fortnite on the App Store, or the policy they tried to implement wrt the Unreal Engine. If there had been some public spat with Bose in the run-up to this, and/or they announced a policy decision related to selling their hardware, it would not be quietly.

acoard 6y ago
>If there had been some public spat with Bose in the run-up to this, and/or they announced a policy decision related to selling their hardware, it would not be quietly. That's a tautology, or at least a trivial claim. It can be reduced to, "if it were a public spat, it would be a public spat." Hope I'm not being uncharitable here. Apple didn't advertise they were dropping FortNite. It was not on the front of the App Store (outside of conspicuously recommending competitors). Apple only released legal and policy statements. These are only warranted when there are policy infractions Apple wants to enforce (eg violating App Store Guidelines). Dropping Bose or Sonos was not due to policy infractions, anymore than Walmart dropping Amazon products is. There is a fundamental difference between "We dropped this product for economic reasons, but it may return" and "We have banned this product because it violates the policies and terms we have set out, and it is no longer welcome." Apple _has_ to respond to policy infractions. Otherwise they're effectively abandoning the policy. [0] [0] Note: I'm not defending the App Store policies here, but rather saying that the App Store policies discussion doesn't pertain to this discussion.
- ghgdynb1 6y ago
  I appreciate the tone, and I don’t think you’re being uncharitable. While it may be true that my claim is tautological (especially if we understand a tautology as a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form), that doesn’t make it false or irrelevant, which seems to be the implication. When you say ‘That's a tautology, or at least a trivial claim. It can be reduced to, "if it were a public spat, it would be a public spat,’” I agree. It’s pretty self-evident. What I’m doing is highlighting that it was a public spat in the case of Fortnite, and wasn't in the case of Bose. I think the bit you’re missing is that once we’ve established that there is a difference between something being a public spat and something not being a public spat, we can use a phrase (like quietly stops) to add that information into a statement. Thus there’s a point to saying quietly, and the word is appropriate. That’s the point I’m making.

acoard 6y ago

>If there had been some public spat with Bose in the run-up to this, and/or they announced a policy decision related to selling their hardware, it would not be quietly. That's a tautology, or at least a trivial claim. It can be reduced to, "if it were a public spat, it would be a public spat." Hope I'm not being uncharitable here. Apple didn't advertise they were dropping FortNite. It was not on the front of the App Store (outside of conspicuously recommending competitors). Apple only released legal and policy statements. These are only warranted when there are policy infractions Apple wants to enforce (eg violating App Store Guidelines). Dropping Bose or Sonos was not due to policy infractions, anymore than Walmart dropping Amazon products is. There is a fundamental difference between "We dropped this product for economic reasons, but it may return" and "We have banned this product because it violates the policies and terms we have set out, and it is no longer welcome." Apple _has_ to respond to policy infractions. Otherwise they're effectively abandoning the policy. [0] [0] Note: I'm not defending the App Store policies here, but rather saying that the App Store policies discussion doesn't pertain to this discussion.

ghgdynb1 6y ago
I appreciate the tone, and I don’t think you’re being uncharitable. While it may be true that my claim is tautological (especially if we understand a tautology as a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form), that doesn’t make it false or irrelevant, which seems to be the implication. When you say ‘That's a tautology, or at least a trivial claim. It can be reduced to, "if it were a public spat, it would be a public spat,’” I agree. It’s pretty self-evident. What I’m doing is highlighting that it was a public spat in the case of Fortnite, and wasn't in the case of Bose. I think the bit you’re missing is that once we’ve established that there is a difference between something being a public spat and something not being a public spat, we can use a phrase (like quietly stops) to add that information into a statement. Thus there’s a point to saying quietly, and the word is appropriate. That’s the point I’m making.