I'm quite familiar with the guidelines, I don't see how my comment violates any of them, especially not 'badly'. Could you please point out which part you think violates which of the guidelines, I'd be more than happy to edit my comment to accommodate you.
The comment consisted of personal swipes or straw men. It was completely disparaging, not a serious response. Some examples:
> here you are expounding on how you are going to continue in the relationship unchanged because it suits you just fine.
> Of course you would. Because that means more money in your pocket.
> And because they're not going to stab each other in the back at the first opportunity.
> I don't even want you to be inconvenienced.
> So, you want it to be easy? I personally don't care enough to do your work for you, and if you don't care either then the work won't get done.
> people who should care don't and that includes yourself.
That's how you talk if, as an outsider, you don't want the perspective of an App Store developer. If your desire is just to rip on me for doing it to myself, then you don't need me here to do that; you can accomplish such denigration on your own, in the self-congratulatory, know-it-all fashion that you've been exhibiting.
Organizing masses of individual people around a shared goal against a powerful opponent is one of the hardest tasks in the world. For example, the majority of people in the United States hate both of the two major political parties, and lots of people say, "We should have a third party!", and there are indeed many minor party alternatives, but turning one of those minor parties into a viable alternative to the existing major parties is obviously extremely difficult. It's not that people don't want to, but the barriers to organization are massive and multifarious. Though everyone may have the same vague goal, the devil is in the details. And the costs of defection from the status quo can be significant; as small as they are now, third parties are still blamed as "spoilers" of elections.
