> Apple doesn't actually care about safety and security, when in fact Web Distribution is more secured than Marketplace distribution.
That's a contradiction in logic there. If they cared for security, they would choose the more secured option. But they didn't?
Either they then have provided worse security all along: web distribution could have offered more security than an app store?
Or they could have provided even better security in their app store all along: if they implemented this stricter checking there. Why not?
These arguments are poor and don't stand up to scruteny.
The very simple conclusion is that it's not about security, that it never has been.
No, you're making assumptions about what "secured" means in this context and clearly have no understanding of how any of it actually works. None of what you wrote makes sense.
You could have stopped at "means". No need to be condescending or telling me I don't know how stuff works. I know how stuff works.
My point is, and remains, purely non-technical though. And I also know how language works.
If you say "we don't allow X, only Y, because we prioritize security". Then change that to "we do allow X but will perform extra security scrutiny over what we do at Y" then it does not compute. Again: it proves your first statement was a lie (intentional or not). Because a) it was possible to allow for your level of security and you could've allowed both X and Y all along, or b) you are now lowering your security, proving you don't really prioritize security, or c) you are merely frustrating X in a different way now and security was never the reason not to allow X.
I'm convinced it's both a and c. I surely hope not that it's b.
That's a contradiction in logic there. If they cared for security, they would choose the more secured option. But they didn't?
Either they then have provided worse security all along: web distribution could have offered more security than an app store? Or they could have provided even better security in their app store all along: if they implemented this stricter checking there. Why not?
These arguments are poor and don't stand up to scruteny.
The very simple conclusion is that it's not about security, that it never has been.