> If a company invests billions in R&D to create hardware and its integrated software, shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? Why should I be forced to open up the carefully designed ecosystem I’ve built?
Once a company becomes massive enough and displays properties of a monopoly, the rules of free commerce change
(that being said, I agree that Apple largely provides users with a high-quality product)
If a company sells me a hardware and software package, that hardware and software is no longer the property of that company once I have exchanged my money for it.
That’s really the crux of the issue. If I must abide by arbitrary rules to use the package at its full functionality, then I didn’t gain ownership of it, did I?
Can't Apple say in this case "I'm selling you this package under the condition that you accept you don't fully own it, and if you're not happy with that, don't buy it".
I don't like this hypothetical (or maybe real) argument from Apple, but can't answer it either.
Because you can't sign away your rights no matter how much some people wish it were true.
It doesn't matter if your gym includes a clause in their contract stating that they are not liable, even through their neglect. If they cause harm through neglect then they are liable.
No, the point is that we should not allow such contractual arrangements. You buy the software, you should own it. Regulations are often required to enforce this.
I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that we shouldn't allow that sort of contract at all, but it should be considered fraudulent to call it selling or what the customer does buying. If you're only offering limited right of use subject to conditions and restrictions, then you're offering something else entirely. And the limitations should be required to be clearly conveyed before money is exchanged.
It's important to note that we do have contracts like that already. They're called equipment leases.
But those types of contracts also have obligations on the seller, which is why Apple and similar companies don't want to have to treat their equipment that way and would rather call it "selling" with an asterisk.
Well, I guess you’d argue that if the ecosystem is so big that it has a social-scale impact, then it should be subject to the whims of society. One such whim is adoption of capitalism as economic policy and a following belief in preserving the free markets that enforce the competition that is required.
Why do we oppress any freedom? When doing so protects the society we are trying to build.
Once a company becomes massive enough and displays properties of a monopoly, the rules of free commerce change
(that being said, I agree that Apple largely provides users with a high-quality product)