> Apple allows one channel. It owns that channel. It is responsible for the content on that channel.
I understand this, and am claiming it is morally reprehensible: Apple's explicit and actively immoral decision to say there is only a single distribution channel can be used on their devices directly leads to this problem. They chose to build and sell a device with a centralized point of failure that made China able to block apps from their phones.
> Android had many channels, and Google’s App Store has the same apps banned, but an android user can simply use another channel.
I also understand this: the active and explicit decision made by the people who sell Android phones is what allows this. Apple explicitly decided to not allow this, because they are evil.
> Since Apple is responsible for the apps in the Chinese App Store, they’ll remove apps that expose them to liability. Google does the same.
Obviously. But that is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. The decision made by Apple to only allow a single store on their phones is an explicit, active decision to be horrible people and to explicitly allow Chinese censorship of their devices.
We know this wasn't a requirement to sell their phones in China, as many other phones are sold in China that do not have these restrictions. Now, you can happily say "Apple wanted to have a monopoly on app distribution, and that's why they decided to build a system that would require them to cave in to these censorship demands".
But you can't claim that they would lose access to the Chinese market. This claim, in fact, makes the error you (incorrectly) claim I do, which is to incorrectly model the decisions Apple made with respect to their platform.
FWIW, if you want to listen to me go on about this issue for an hour and a half--to verify I am not somehow twisting my words here to avoid being wrong--here is a video of me speaking at Mozilla Privacy Lab.