> One could carry the same analogy to level apps, compass apps, music streaming apps (particularly given the iPod and iCloud), etc Yes, because it is a continu

> One could carry the same analogy to level apps, compass apps, music streaming apps (particularly given the iPod and iCloud), etc Yes, because it is a continuum, the argument extends to every type of application, including the outliers I mentioned in my own example. The important point is that some are farther from "core" functionality than others. The closer you move to the core, the more risk you assume. In my view, a music streaming app on iOS faces a lot of risk. It's Apple's platform. They don't enjoy a monopoly, so they should be free to set the rules of entry. I've strongly disagreed with their policies in the past [1], but my views don't change the facts. Apple's platform, Apple's rules. This WiFi sync app is particularly high risk, because it's "plumbing". Syncing is a low-level function that reasonable person would expect to be provided by a system service. Apple recognizes that this is the reasonable view and denied the original app for their own reasons. Many of which we cannot know, but we can reason. Being such a "low-level" service, Apple wants to preserve the user experience. This is very typical Apple behavior. I'm not surprised at all that they would deny the app. The "ethical" question is a much more interesting one. It raises the question, "What are the boundaries of governing your own platform when users have the ability to leave at any time?" I think Apple bumps up against these boundaries all the time. They have a pretty long history of pushing the limits with their T&Cs, then easing back. Is that ethical? I'm not sure. 1 - http://www.bradlanders.com/2011/02/21/its-not-greed-its-narcissism/ http://www.bradlanders.com/2011/02/21/its-not-greed-its-narc...