The HKMap.live situation happened before the Chinese Firewall was in place in Hong Kong (2019), so that's really not an excuse. Regardless, the great firewall doesn't necessarily prevent person-to-person sharing of an app for instance. Ultimately, you should absolutely put the ball in their court to actively have to fight the spreading of the app as opposed to being a willing participant. BTW, Tor, that thing you ignored in the rest of your post, was designed exactly to fight against things like the Chinese Firewall.

> I also still think that macOS is a more secure OS by design vs Windows, so that may be another reason I'm picking on Windows.

This just makes no sense. If you are making a case against a change, you don't point to the worst implementation of it just because it's the worst, especially when the party that would actually be implementing the alternative has already successfully done so on another platform. It's like a state arguing against marijuana legalization by pointing to a completely different country instead of many of the other US states that have successfully legalized it without catastrophic results. iOS is also "more secure by design". So why do you assume iOS would become Windows and not macOS? There is no logic here, just the desire to use an outdated and more convenient comparison point. If you honestly believe that iOS without the AppStore would become Windows and not the Mac, then you have a very bizarrely low opinion of the engineers on iOS.

> I was very clear that I wasn't comparing the situation with the app store to actual literal murder, but that comparison weaves throughout most of your reply. My point was entirely about the implementation and not at all about the regulated activity.

Yup, and I have provided several great examples of why the situation is very different, including many examples of things that are not "bad" but Apple could not want on the store. Like Tor. And FireFox. All of which you ignored. I also showed examples of how it doesn't have to be a free-for-all that everyone must be subjected to, and that there are other ways to do it. Also ignored. I addressed the main substance of your argument, while still finding it hilarious that the best analogy you could come up with was an "abstract version of the purge".

Listen, I am honestly glad that the circumstances in your life are such that Apple's decisions may not have a meaningful impact on your ability to escape censorship or fight for your right to be heard, but I hope someday you'll understand that these real scenarios that have actually taken place matter as much as your hypothetical worst-case scenarios that involve Apple implementing a slightly different system in the most un-Apply way, as opposed to the way they've done so with tremendous success on their other platform.

And yes, when presented with a wall of text consisting of mostly emotional arguments talking past my points, I started skimming.

Finally, you really shouldn't stoop to ad-hominem like you did at the end of your post. You have no idea who I am or my life experience, and even if you did, it's still not a valid argument regardless of my circumstances. Try to be less sanctimonious.

If the consequences of the decisions a company makes aren't a good metric for whether they are good decisions or not, then what is? We're talking about the largest company on Earth that often has a larger effect on the world than many countries do, and you want to take "outcomes" off the table for argument?

> I'm not here to argue on the fine points of China policy or human rights.

Oh, I'm aware, as you seem more than willing to throw out anachronistic arguments (like using the Chinese Firewall as an excuse before it was in place), and then immediately try to change the subject when it's clear you're out of your depth.

> And yes, when presented with a wall of text consisting of mostly emotional arguments talking past my points, I started skimming.

I'm not sure how you can know it's emotional when you've admitted to not having read it. I'm also perplexed as to why you bother responding if you aren't willing to read what you're responding to. It's like writing a review for a movie you haven't seen, it's not going to be a good review.

*> Finally, you really shouldn't stoop to ad-hominem [...] Try to be less sanctimonious."

Some would argue that blanket describing an entire post that someone invested time in writing as "emotional" to the point of not needing to be read is a fairly bold and "sanctimonious" value-judgement. I at least take the time to read your responses before drawing any conclusions.

You were correct, and you seem to know much more about history than I do. All I can do is learn, but again, we aren't here to talk about the timeline of the HK protests. You may have a valid point bringing it up with Apple's pull on the world, but that's not the whole picture. That's all I was trying to say.

> I'm not sure how you can know it's emotional when you've admitted to not having read it

I read a lot of it but after the third time seeing you mention a detail I'd already told you wasn't relevant, yeah, I stopped trying so hard.

Hopefully you trust me when I say I've read everything else you've written, not sure how you think I could keep replying to your quotes otherwise.

> Some would argue that blanket describing an entire post that someone invested time in writing as "emotional" to the point of not needing to be read is a fairly bold and "sanctimonious" value-judgement

Not the same thing as what you were trying to do at all. You tried to pigeonhole me into some class of person in order to undercut my arguments. I merely pointed out that you were letting your emotions run away with your arguments... indeed, you did talk by my point, multiple times.

> You tried to pigeonhole me into some class of person in order to undercut my arguments.

I guess I didn't think it was much of a stretch to assume that someone who conveys the position of "sure, people fighting for their freedoms and journalists evading censorship are valid points -- BUT, that's not the whole picture, remember how bad Windows was?" is unlikely to have had to face these issues. For the record, that wouldn't make you bad, I haven't had to face these issues either. And you're right, for all I know it may very well be the case that you're typing this from a laptop in the desert fighting for water rights or something, but still open minded enough to be just as concerned about the practical business desires of Apple's AppStore. I simply think your post repeatedly skipping the points about Tor gave off a sense of irreverence with regard to them, arguably just as insulting as assuming you haven't had to deal with them. I'm sure you can understand any frustration that might generate, considering you've now admitted you may have not read them.

That being said, I don't think an outsider reading my post would think it is really all that "emotional". Passionate perhaps. Either way, I think you mentioned that that wasn't what we were arguing about. I guess I don't know where the demarcation lines of what we're arguing about are. I'm simply arguing about the effects of the AppStore, and what I believe would be the benefits of other alternatives, to Apple, customers, and yes, the world. As you yourself said, "the whole picture." I began this thread by stating that pricing was not the real problem, so I think I certainly hinted as much. My only hope is that our conversation has perhaps introduced you to concerns about the AppStore beyond the IMO tired discussion of whether 30% is or isn't too high, which is the unfortunate form that this argument usually takes, since it is usually presented as "Apple's interests" vs. "3rd party developers' interests," but that I think is ultimately just a small part of the conversation.