One of the reasons why it's so restrictive is so developers can't do things like the attack in the article. You can't have the protection Apple offers and also have the freedom to do things the protection protects against. That's a tautology.
It's fair to say that BitTorrent main use cases can not be said to have been in most copyright holders best interest, but as always, the details are important.
I don't personally think BitTorrent is super useful to most phone owners, but then again well over 99 percent of apps are not useful to me, so I don't know if that's an important metric?
Best interest of Apples commercial partners, seems to be what it is about, not what is reasonable, fair, or good. In other words, it wouldn't matter if there actually is/was things on BitTorrent that you actually wanted on your phone, because you are not the most important party here, the content owners are, and I think that is wrong considering the role digital devices has come to play in society.
Considering a lot of people only have phones today, I think Apple is clearly stepping over a line with how they manage their app store in a much broader sense.
Few would think it to be reasonable, that a main producer of printing presses would lease them on the condition that only certain articles can be printed, or maybe decide what magazines a kiosks on the sidewalk is allowed to sell - only because they were paid to build the shack - would be an even more apt comparison?
Tangentially, as we don't have any real equivalent to public spaces in the digital realm, it can be argued that the public spaces resides at least partially in whatever digital spaces are created to perform a similar role as the equivalent public space. An interesting thought, but I digress.
It boggles my mind that it is suddenly seen as okay because the "paper" is now a $1000 digital device, instead of a cheap piece of paper?
Since you can choose what paper to buy any day of the week, but what device to buy only rarely, I would expect society to put strict rules on the content curation of device producers/platform owners, but instead the opposite seems to be the case.
So why aren’t torrent clients banned on Android, ChromeOS, Windows, and MacOS? Because I might download a CentOS installer after downloading those 2TB of copyrighted movies and music?
