"We would all cry foul if the government shut down your business because it conflicts with interests of state."
This is a bit of a straw man. If your business is disposing of toxic waste or printing dollars or forming a private army then no, we will not all cry foul if the government comes in and shuts down your business.
"Why should we not also cry foul for a corporation to de-facto shut down your business because it violates their interests?"
Maybe because that business signed up for it? If I operate a hot dog stand at Yankee Stadium and Yankee Stadium decides to close I guess I'm out of business?
"At the end of the day, it makes little difference to Rogue Amoeba whether they were shut down by government tyranny or by corporate whim: it matters that they were shut down at all, and we all suffer for the economic output which they (and others) are unable to create for themselves and society. It's antithetical to the to very purpose of capitalism."
I'm not sure how you've turned RA's app removal into a bad soliloquy from an Ayn Rand novel but what you're actually suggesting here is a massive intrusion into private markets by the government... the Law of Unintended Consequences is a bitch like that. If Apple doesn't stock my new app we get to sue them? If Macy's doesn't stock my new line of clothes do we get to sue them too? Methinks where this train of thought goes is not "the very purpose of capitalism" that you're seeking...
> If your business is disposing of toxic waste or printing dollars or forming a private army then no, we will not all cry foul.
Of course. And if RA was selling something illegal or dangerous, we'd be fine with Apple removing it; that goes without saying.
The purpose of capitalism is creating wealth via trade. I can still sell hot dogs at places other than Yankee Stadium; however, Rogue Amoeba cannot take their software and sell it elsewhere. Yes, in theory they could make a new Android app from scratch, but (a) their work on the iOS app is still lost, and (b) they permanently lose access to the customer base, which is different than merely losing one sales venue of many.
It's ironic that you indict me for parroting Ayn Rand when I thought I was doing just the opposite. :) Libertarians like to think that tyranny is only created by governments. I take the broader view that concentrated private power will always emerge, like the T-1000 that never dies, taking whatever form is convenient, be it state, company, church, or something else entirely, and we must be constantly vigilant to rebalance power when it crosses a certain anti-social threshold.
Might there be unintended consequences to intervening? Of course. But there can also be unintended consequences to inaction as well. Even if government intervention isn't the right solution, it doesn't mean we shouldn't pay attention to the problem, which is not limited to Apple, and which is likelier to spread than die on its own (refer to the overlapping problem of DRM lock-in).
This is a bit of a straw man. If your business is disposing of toxic waste or printing dollars or forming a private army then no, we will not all cry foul if the government comes in and shuts down your business.
"Why should we not also cry foul for a corporation to de-facto shut down your business because it violates their interests?"
Maybe because that business signed up for it? If I operate a hot dog stand at Yankee Stadium and Yankee Stadium decides to close I guess I'm out of business?
"At the end of the day, it makes little difference to Rogue Amoeba whether they were shut down by government tyranny or by corporate whim: it matters that they were shut down at all, and we all suffer for the economic output which they (and others) are unable to create for themselves and society. It's antithetical to the to very purpose of capitalism."
I'm not sure how you've turned RA's app removal into a bad soliloquy from an Ayn Rand novel but what you're actually suggesting here is a massive intrusion into private markets by the government... the Law of Unintended Consequences is a bitch like that. If Apple doesn't stock my new app we get to sue them? If Macy's doesn't stock my new line of clothes do we get to sue them too? Methinks where this train of thought goes is not "the very purpose of capitalism" that you're seeking...