Hacker News Reader

So you're effectively saying that Apple must allow a user to install malware (likely unintentionally), but then Apple is also responsible for paying to fix it?

I feel like I have to be misunderstanding you because that makes no sense.

View on HN

What it seems like they're saying is that Apple should operate like a car manufacturer, wherein if you put some aftermarket shite in your engine, you can't get a warranty service, and likewise if you don't do your due diligence with what you put on your PC, Apple should be able to deny service.

While perfectly fair, it would still lead to unhappy customers, which aren't exactly known to be receptive to reason.

While I may not always agree with Apple's approach I can understand their reasoning and don't believe that it simply comes down to earning a few extra bucks with the 30% cut in question and all the seemingly drastic measures that come with it.

Apple is put in the position of a judge right now. They decide what malware is, and the user has no say. The problem is, the user should be allowed to choose not to delegate the task of setting definitions.

Most users do not want this, but some do.

Some users will consider a RAT a way to fix things, while others will consider some game to be a malicious drug. Both should be allowed to make their own decisions if they really want to.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com