i am sure Apple would not characterize themselves as Nazi's, nor did i mean to
characterize them as such ... however as the saying goes "the road to Hell is paved
with good intentions".
i am sure they have "good intentions" for their own bottom line and the
"happiness" of their customers. That currently seems to involve modifying how they
interact with App Store Developers, and the copyrights those devs include in their submissions.
They are a giant and can certainly affect the marketplace, which they hope to do, to achieve the
above benefits... but not necessarily the health or the freedom of the rest of the ecology - which
Iverson Software, and Developers in general, inhabit.
By necessity the rest of the world must adapt (no matter which way Apple
swings), hopefully towards a win-win scenario, but not necessarily.
It seems Apple is now on the warpath against ALL GPL'd code ...(the
presumption is they do not like the viral nature) …
IMHO it's not Apple being nazi. It's forced on them.
Given that Apple is a very large collection of people, I think that this is not a
meaningful distinction. Or: it's only "forced on them" if we ignore their past
decisions leading them to this point.
App Store sells products developed by 3rd parties, under contract governed by the usual commercial
agreements to protect IPR, e.g. non-disclosure. It follows that "Open Source" and
"App Store product" are a contradiction in terms.
Not at all.
But that doesn't keep people from making that kind of assertion. But the people doing so,
as a general rule, have not read copyright law, have not read "open source"
licenses, etc.
But Apple has always based its business on offering (I don't say
"guaranteeing") some sort of security with its premium-priced products. But
more and more they're being asked to deliver. They can only do this – and only with their
newer products, like iOS and Catalina – if they stop your machine *ever* running *any*
code that has not been downloaded *without modification* from App Store.
This is much closer to relevant and accurate.
But it's still only a part of the picture.
How are they going to do this without stifling independent development? This
must be really taxing their best minds.
There's a variety of possibilities here, but... anyways...
Think of a nation state trying to prevent their children (read: "citizens")
seeing bad stuff on the worldwide web. I discern 3 approaches: 1. The Iranian approach.
Pull the plug and stick the whole country in purdah.
Isn't that currently more of a fear and an intermittent issue than a long term
issue?
2. The USA/UK approach. Heavy bureaucracy that's mainly for show. All fur coat
and no knickers.
That's ... not really accurate. It's more that most people don't understand the
goals of the various bureaucracies, even while heavily relying on their people
doing their jobs.
3. The Chinese approach. Iron hand in velvet glove. Needs bold PR.
Again, that's not completely accurate. But the place is huge, and also I have
less information about those systems.
Apple, I'd say, is trying to stay with approach 3ns. But 2 and 1 are creeping
in, as panic measures.
I'd characterize Apple's situation as: they're currently in a pendulum swing towards
being more of a style-based outfit. But, yes, most of their manufacturing is in China
because lobbying has made manufacturing here unsustainable. And, as a result, they're
experiencing a lot of pressure to move away from the "substance" side of
technology.
