> The objection could very well be for security reasons.

It could also be for control over users but claiming "security reasons" whenever anyone asks since that has become a "think of the children" topic in tech.

Sure I don’t disagree. My point was that the quote isn’t “proof.”

The thing I took away from this exchange was the total lack of discussion about what’s in the end user’s best interest. What’s best for the user’s experience? It’s all “We want this” and “Facebook wants that” and the end user is just a bystander. Nobody cares what we think or want.

For all these companies’ marketing-talk about how they care so much about the end user experience, the executives don’t seem all that interested.

Do you not think that this would already have been discussed when the policy under discussion was first developed? The rationale for the policy - whatever it is - would have been determined well before this problem arose. There would be no need for these people, who would have been central to those policies, to rehash their reasons in these emails. They already know all the arguments.

Anti-competitive reasons hidden with security excuses is Apple's modus operandi.

Sure I don’t disagree. My point was that the quote isn’t “proof.”

Charging 30% doesn't enhance security.

Charging a markup on products sold in a store has a long tradition in retail.

I’ll let the Google Play Store know.

Definitely let them know. Then they can make their store successful enough so that the android developers stop trying to make iOS android.

Huh? The parent didn't make that claim. The grandparent wasn't making that claim. And I certainly haven't ever heard Apple stating or implying that free apps are less secure than paid apps.

Aka the mob argument