zlacker

Your argument rests on the strange assumption that people who are against IOS restricting apps on the iPhone would for some reason support Amazon's restrictions on Kindle apps.

>>pessim+(OP)
I can also easily load PDFs and other formats to a Kindle even if I didn’t go through the Amazon store.

>>yellow+k5
And you can load content and view websites on your iPhone as well.

We are talking about apps.

>>pessim+(OP)
My "argument"[1] rests on the idea that they don't care about restrictions on Kindle apps because there's no valuable market of buyers on the other side, and so it's not about "anti-competitive" as claimed.

The famous and expensive London shop Harrods has a reputation for a wealthy customer base, and it's like saying it's unfair that you have to convince Harrods to stock your products and then they take a cut of all sales for doing so, and that you should be able to sell to their specific wealthy customer base and use their trusted environment for doing so, using the reputation they've developed, without them getting anything in return, and their shop should be an open street market.

[1] in which I ask why it's different, which was no argument at all.

>>yellow+k5
And you can easily load PDFs and music onto an iPhone/iPad without going through the Apple store or iTunes store. So they're even and that's good enough for Kindle therefore it's good enough for iOS, right?

Oh wait, on top, iOS has an app store so you can do more, so that's a win for iOS? And the app store can have free apps on it where Apple take no money, but still review and curate for some minimum standards of quality, which is nice.

>>jodrel+gd
> but still review and curate for some minimum standards of quality

It would've been fine if they only reviewed apps for "quality". Unfortunately, they also review the services that apps connect to, and the policies of these services.