alt Hacker NewsNot to play devil's advocate here and also IANAL but:
If (as as it is) Apple is still controlling apps via notarizarion/digitally signing apps of and recognizing developers, and if the app is developed for something that would land Apple in legal trouble (e.g. it makes it easy to freely and illegally download music and Apple also has legal contracts with record labels as they have Apple Music, and not only legal but it also affects Apple's own music revenue too) as the app has passed explicit notarization of Apple (in other words: Apple "knowlingly" allowed them and greenlighted them by notarizing the app), wouldn't it cause legal trouble for Apple?
For that, it's the logical behavior for a company like Apple to stop allowing the app.
Again, I'm not supporting it, but I can imagine where it's coming from and that makes sense from a business perspective as torrenting on mobile has almost no legal use cases. We all know you have not installed it to download your favorite Linux distro to your iPhone.
Replies
1. Signing apps does not constitute endorsement. Re-read the developer agreement.
2. Apple's obligations under law supersede their agreements with any record labels.
Legally that sounds about right, but morally, your argument does nothing to defend Apple. They pioneered stealing autonomy from their users. They know governments abuse this [1,2,3]. Yet they prefer to profit off keeping their users prisoner, than give them control of the devices they paid for.
Maybe the first time you chain a man to a tree, you can plead ignorance, that you didn't know wolves would come eat him at night. But by the 100th time, you're as guilty as the wolves.
[1] Apple pulls app used to track Hong Kong police, Cook defends move - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests-apple-i...
[2] Apple removes nearly 100 VPNs used by Russians to bypass censorship - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41712728
[3] Apple's Cooperation with Authoritarian Governments - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26644216
If the ability to remove apps obligates them to remove apps, then that is a strong argument for them not to have the ability to remove apps.
It also almost certainly doesn't so obligate them. They aren't acting as an intermediary, they are just incidentally signing the app. The app signing certifies in the first place that they checked the documents of the app devs, and in the second place that they haven't decided to remove the app. But removing the app is an action, not an inaction, they can't be compelled to take it. It would be like the record label saying I had to stop a bootlegger I happened to observe while I was out for a walk.