2 ms·
They almost certainly don't want to set the precedent of caving in to a sub-national jurisdiction's bills when they don't even have any business operations in t
by MichaelZuo 3y ago
They almost certainly don't want to set the precedent of caving in to a sub-national jurisdiction's bills when they don't even have any business operations in that jurisdiction.
Because then every state, province territory, etc., in the world will have an excuse. Since there are App Store users everywhere.
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoThis is what lawsuits are for, not preemptive refusal to do business with an entire state. It's a lot cheaper to code geographic controls (that they already have for national-level jurisdictions) than to only temporarily boycott even only 100k paying App store customers.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoIt's not possible to code sub-national geographic controls without sacrificing markets much bigger then Montana. There's a reason why no company has ever successfully done such a thing for any consumer product.
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoAs long as they do the best they can to comply with the law they would likely be protected from judgement. Courts do not require unreasonable standards of compliance. If phone users turn off their GPS location feature Apple can't be held accountable.