> What I wish would happen — and yes, I know this is naive and stupid and probably fruitless — is that Apple would just give the slightest bit of ground. Does

> What I wish would happen — and yes, I know this is naive and stupid and probably fruitless — is that Apple would just give the slightest bit of ground. Does anyone know if there's a strategic legal reason Apple hasn't done this (beyond the small developer program)? Like, imagine tomorrow they give ground. What op-eds would I read in the WSJ about how they've exposed themselves x, y, z problems? I mean this in the legal sense, not the obvious, usual slippery slope. One thing that really struck me in this article was Phil Schiller's email about sort of capping the rule after Apple takes in $1B in profit. I thought that was a very sweet and kind thing to suggest. Maybe the number is wrong, maybe the motivation is wrong, but I do like the spirit of this. Basically, "fair" is hard to define. As stated in the article, literally everyone has good points. In cases like this, when fair in some kind of algebraic sense is impossible, maybe the easiest and best way to approach it is to say "fair is when everyone is more or less ok". Maybe that's the case now, maybe that's the sentiment that Phil was putting fourth. I wonder what that version of "fair" would like like today? Or maybe that's exactly what the small developer program is. Like, you don't have to pay that much unless you're making $1M or more. I know I would be very happy as a developer to have an app like this, and anything beyond that I'd probably be totally sucked into a money crazed world anyway, and probably miserable.