The best argument against Apple is the inconsistency in application of rules. If what you say is reasonable why would they also promote iOS apps whose explicit purpose is the simulation of cartel wars or marijuana dispensaries? My hot take is one doesn’t make much money for Apple while the others provide a clear incentive to act willfully ignorant given their in app revenue streams.
I think this is the weakest argument? Selective enforcement of rules is a time-honored tradition and seems to be explicitly reserved as the right of the rules-enforcer everywhere. It might be a good argument in a hypothetical debate about the fairness and compassion displayed by Apple, but I don't think you'd get far with it convincing either Apple itself or even a court if one somehow was interested.
Also known as lying. It is blatantly obvious that Apple selectively enforces their policies. Anyone who has ever published multiple apps on the app store knows this.
Those at the top often allow themselves to believe that their company is virtuous by being disconnected from the day-to-day. I think that Tim Cook genuinely believes Apple acts honorably and is sincere. This decision is still bullshit.
He said companies don’t get special deals, but then I don’t know what else to call the deal they made with Amazon, where Amazon can bypass Apple’s payment system for some users.
