> If your business is disposing of toxic waste or printing dollars or forming a private army then no, we will not all cry foul.
Of course. And if RA was selling something illegal or dangerous, we'd be fine with Apple removing it; that goes without saying.
The purpose of capitalism is creating wealth via trade. I can still sell hot dogs at places other than Yankee Stadium; however, Rogue Amoeba cannot take their software and sell it elsewhere. Yes, in theory they could make a new Android app from scratch, but (a) their work on the iOS app is still lost, and (b) they permanently lose access to the customer base, which is different than merely losing one sales venue of many.
It's ironic that you indict me for parroting Ayn Rand when I thought I was doing just the opposite. :) Libertarians like to think that tyranny is only created by governments. I take the broader view that concentrated private power will always emerge, like the T-1000 that never dies, taking whatever form is convenient, be it state, company, church, or something else entirely, and we must be constantly vigilant to rebalance power when it crosses a certain anti-social threshold.
Might there be unintended consequences to intervening? Of course. But there can also be unintended consequences to inaction as well. Even if government intervention isn't the right solution, it doesn't mean we shouldn't pay attention to the problem, which is not limited to Apple, and which is likelier to spread than die on its own (refer to the overlapping problem of DRM lock-in).
Of course. And if RA was selling something illegal or dangerous, we'd be fine with Apple removing it; that goes without saying.
The purpose of capitalism is creating wealth via trade. I can still sell hot dogs at places other than Yankee Stadium; however, Rogue Amoeba cannot take their software and sell it elsewhere. Yes, in theory they could make a new Android app from scratch, but (a) their work on the iOS app is still lost, and (b) they permanently lose access to the customer base, which is different than merely losing one sales venue of many.
It's ironic that you indict me for parroting Ayn Rand when I thought I was doing just the opposite. :) Libertarians like to think that tyranny is only created by governments. I take the broader view that concentrated private power will always emerge, like the T-1000 that never dies, taking whatever form is convenient, be it state, company, church, or something else entirely, and we must be constantly vigilant to rebalance power when it crosses a certain anti-social threshold.
Might there be unintended consequences to intervening? Of course. But there can also be unintended consequences to inaction as well. Even if government intervention isn't the right solution, it doesn't mean we shouldn't pay attention to the problem, which is not limited to Apple, and which is likelier to spread than die on its own (refer to the overlapping problem of DRM lock-in).