> You ignore their existence and role implicitly without the slightest consideration; their right to choose is _the_ consideration here. This is silly. I said,

> You ignore their existence and role implicitly without the slightest consideration; their right to choose is _the_ consideration here. This is silly. I said, "Apple takes away choices from users in many other areas". iPhone is an extremely locked down device. Users do not have the right to do what they want with it. (Which I complained about earlier, not being able to install software like Little Snitch on iPhone.) I've been a Mac user for a long time, since before the App Store, before the iPhone, before Gatekeeper, even before code signing existed. I'm very aware of what user choice is about, and iPhone is definitely not at all about user choice. So, please start over without the fake moralizing, which cannot be taken seriously in this case. The right to choose is almost never Apple's consideration nowadays. There's currently legislation under consideration in North Dakota that would give users the right to choose, but Apple is complaining that it would "destroy iPhone as we know it". Exactly. iPhone is not about user freedom. Everyone knows that... except apparently you. > so you can point the finger unerringly at Apple The funny thing is that a lot of iPhone users would praise Apple for banning the SDKs. Only you seem to think that the iPhone is all about user choice. The majority opinion seems to be that Apple's lockdown is good, for the user's "protection". So I'm still puzzled why you even think using the word "ban" is a criticism of Apple. I can speculate that perhaps an explicit ban would get Apple into antitrust trouble, which may have been what the article author was referring to. But if your argument is, "It's not a ban, because a ban would be legally problematic for Apple", that would not be very convincing argument.