pehache wrote:

> But there are *many* other examples where Apple showed little concern
> for compatibility, just thinking "customer are meant to give their
> money, they will do so".

This has _nothing_ to do with compatibility.

Apple already corrected their initial claims.

It's just getting rid of old apps that weren't downloaded often.

Unless that too was a lie from Apple, we have to believe them.
--
*Apple clarifies conditions for App Store app removal*
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/04/30/apple-clarifies-conditions-for-app-store-app-removal-extends-update-deadline-to-90-days>

Is Apple really that stupid that they don't know their own policies?
*Apple Clarifies Criteria For App Store Improvement Process*
<https://www.republicworld.com/technology-news/other-tech-news/apple-clarifies-criteria-for-app-store-improvement-process-check-details-here-articleshow.html>

Or, did Apple simply get caught in yet another brazen lie to the world?
*Apple clarifies which apps are to be removed from the App Store*
<https://digitnews.in/apple-clarifies-which-apps-are-to-be-removed-from-the-app-store/>

Did Apple really think they'd get away with such brazen public lies?
*Clarifying criteria for App Store app removal process*
<https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=gi6npkmf>

Apple lied.
This is _not_ about old apps. It never was.

I haven't seen a single low-IQ uneducated iKook _understand_ that fact yet.

On 2022-05-17 1:52 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> pehache wrote:
>
>> But there are *many* other examples where Apple showed little concern
>> for compatibility, just thinking "customer are meant to give their
>> money, they will do so".
>
> This has _nothing_ to do with compatibility.
>
> Apple already corrected their initial claims.
>
> It's just getting rid of old apps that weren't downloaded often.
>
> Unless that too was a lie from Apple, we have to believe them.

Look at this:

> --

You've carefully placed your non-cites beneath the sig separator.

> *Apple clarifies conditions for App Store app removal*
> <https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/04/30/apple-clarifies-conditions-for-app-store-app-removal-extends-update-deadline-to-90-days>
>
>
> Is Apple really that stupid that they don't know their own policies?
> *Apple Clarifies Criteria For App Store Improvement Process*
> <https://www.republicworld.com/technology-news/other-tech-news/apple-clarifies-criteria-for-app-store-improvement-process-check-details-here-articleshow.html>
>
>
> Or, did Apple simply get caught in yet another brazen lie to the world?
> *Apple clarifies which apps are to be removed from the App Store*
> <https://digitnews.in/apple-clarifies-which-apps-are-to-be-removed-from-the-app-store/>
>
>
> Did Apple really think they'd get away with such brazen public lies?
> *Clarifying criteria for App Store app removal process*
> <https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=gi6npkmf>
>
> Apple lied.
> This is _not_ about old apps. It never was.
>
> I haven't seen a single low-IQ uneducated iKook _understand_ that fact yet.

In article <t612bi$jo6$3@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2022-05-17 1:52 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> > ...

>
> Look at this:
>
> > --
>
> You've carefully placed your non-cites beneath the sig separator.

that's because unlike normal people, 'andy'/'arlen'/etc. uses various
scripts to post to usenet, which are *very* buggy.

he claims his newsreader is vi, of all things.

nospam wrote:

>> You've carefully placed your non-cites beneath the sig separator.
>
> that's because unlike normal people

I really wish you wouldn't reply to Alan Baker who is not only just about
the only other person than Snit I've had to plonk, but who complains about
everything just so that he can complain.

It's kind of funny that he's complaining that I gave references because he
is well known to claim that references don't even exist when they do, and
when you give him the references time and time and time again, he, like you
nospam, denies everything in them _without_ even clicking on them.

It's how a person like you is able to maintain your imaginary belief
system, which, in this case, Apple isn't even claiming what you claim.

Apple at first claimed it was about old non updated apps, but when
developers pointed out apps which were clearly even older and they weren't
affected, Apple fessed up and said it's not really about old apps after
all.

We discussed this, and you ignorant iKooks _still_ didn't comprehend it.
--
*Apple clarifies conditions for App Store app removal*
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/04/30/apple-clarifies-conditions-for-app-store-app-removal-extends-update-deadline-to-90-days>

*Apple Clarifies Criteria For App Store Improvement Process*
<https://www.republicworld.com/technology-news/other-tech-news/apple-clarifies-criteria-for-app-store-improvement-process-check-details-here-articleshow.html>

*Apple clarifies which apps are to be removed from the App Store*
<https://digitnews.in/apple-clarifies-which-apps-are-to-be-removed-from-the-app-store/>

*Clarifying criteria for App Store app removal process*
<https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=gi6npkmf>

Apple lied.
This is _not_ about old apps. It never was.
I haven't seen a single low-IQ uneducated iKook _understand_ that fact yet.