[jackewiehose]

I didn't downvote but I understand why others did (I would have if it wasn't already grey).

It's incredibly frustrating to read these pro-walled-garden-arguments. By the same argument you could say that the people in Hong Kong or elsewhere should just shut up and accept that their leaders will know what's best for them.

I worry about a future where these locked-down devices will be the norm for all of us. Don't defend Apple for locking you in. That's ridiculous.

[edmundsauto]

The analogy isn't useful because you're comparing a government to a corporation.

[jackewiehose]

Of course it's not the same but it comes down to a party that wants to restrict your freedom in order to protect you.

[edmundsauto]

One crucial difference is whether you can opt-out. Another big difference is the stated intention of the party/entity: i.e. Apple is not a company "of the people, by the people, and for the people".

My objection is that it's not that useful to only look at whether a party wants to restrict freedom. Personally, I don't think that's a very useful dimension at all -- I don't consider the existence of a road limiting to my freedom to drive wherever I feel like it.

[jackewiehose]

From my point of view, I can't "opt-out" from Apple. Neither in business nor in private. And I tried.

Of course, you can always use another road or go completly off track. Like living in the woods?

[millstone]

I don't see the worry. Apple is not actively locking anyone in; people are free to choose Apple's products, or not.