I'm not missing the point, I'm contesting it. You're assuming the conclusion that the policy is horrid. No, that's what is under debate. I'm fine with the policy of not approving this app.
I'm sorry you came here to here a dittohead fest where everyone echo'd your views and didn't get it.
Contesting the point would be to explain why the policy is not horrid, to the people who regard it as censorship and therefore horrid, by addressing the point.
You did not do that, you said "Build your own Apple then!".
This comment is the closest you ever came to defending the policy, by saying "I'm fine with it". But you're not trying to convince anyone else by providing any information or reasons. Rather, you're asserting that they can't possibly convince you.
And you have resorted to a low by attacking me personally as a "dittohead".
I've addressed why it's not horrid all over the place in this thread. The goods that store X sells are not chosen by the public or by committee or by anything else. They are chosen by whoever owns store X. That's how every store works and if store X doesn't want to sell pornography or political merchandise or whatever that's up to them. And if you think Apple is horrid for having the same policy as virtually every other store in history then by equivalence they are all horrid. That's obviously absurd so your claim is false. QED.
No, if Apple's policy is not to sell the drone app, and (let's assume) Google's policy is to sell the drone app, these are not the same policy by definition.
(Therefore you cannot claim that all stores have the same policy. This stuff is high-school level logic and I don't understand why you have difficulty with it.)
In which case I am perfectly free to find Apple's policy horrid, and find the hypothetical Android store policy commendable.
