I don't understand why Apple can't keep every App available for users in their purchase list even if the developer choose not to keep the account active. For example with iTunes Match I download hundreds of songs from my library that do not exist in the iTunes music store. I know Apps are larger files than AACs, so space is an issue.
Or release software that does manage all the non-music types. But removing access to apps that were legally purchased? How can anyone justify this?
Apple's media/device relationship needs to be blown up and rebuilt altogether. But that's not going to happen, because the future it clearly wants is for everyone to move to iOS or iOS-based devices, with little to no Mac connection at all. The changes with 12.7 is but yet another example that it sees Macs as old news, despite waking the hardware groups from their slumber and telling them to at least shove some up to date hardware out the door this year.
Things were simple when the Mac was still the company, and the iPod appeared. It was but a music player, and needed a simple application to load it with songs and also play them on the computer. When the iTMS arrived, it was a simple task to integrate the additional source for media content.
But, with each successive new media type and source, Apple has simply added onto iTunes and made it into the Winchester Mystery House that everyone likes to hate, and often with good reason.
There hasn't been a cohesive strategy to sensibly accomodate each new media type with the apps on two different platforms; they've just simply shoehorned them in where they might fit best.
Now that Apple has finally realized that such a mishmash of content spread across so many apps and their nooks and crannies is no longer sustainable, it is finally taking steps to clean up the mess. That's a good thing.
However, the way in which they're going about it reflects a serious lack of though, and consideration for the user. That's not a good thing.
Simply excising functionality that users have relied on for many years, with no equally capable substitute, is like amputating a limb in a desperate attempt at weight loss. It may accomplish the goal in the short term, but leaves the person less capable overall.
As I've said before, I don't believe Apple is the company that fought the hard times, and survived to prosper and achieve massive success.
Jobs has passed, and many have gone on to pursue their own goals outside of the company.
Those who are still around have become drunk with success, and have lost the plot, allowing the company to get fat and lazy ("Macs? Oh yeah, I think they're still around in the back. But wouldn't you like an iPhone instead?")
The newbies who have joined the company only know it as a success, and don't have the experience of having to deliver or go home. "Good enough" is now the standard.
And the secretive, silo-ed culture Apple embraces only works up to a point, and often doesn't work at all. It's not good for worker morale, and the disconnect between what the different groups know is not an efficient way to work or result in good products.
In short, this is not a company that feels scared, feels a need to listen to customers, or still feels that it has to lead. That's great while it lasts, but the iPhone is not going to carry the load forever, and any student of business can recite a litany of companies that have faded, if not completely into oblivion. Apple may not meet such a fate, but a path like IBM or HP has followed is not out of the question, though it may still be a ways off.
"Stay hungry, stay foolish?" That guy ain't around any more.
