|
|
|
|
|
|
by chrisseaton
2148 days ago
|
|
|
> You keep quoting a partial comment and then trying to shift the discussion away from the fundamental point. When you try to give a concrete example I show how that concrete example doesn't make any sense to me. If the fundamental point doesn't translate to any concrete situations then it's a dud. > neither of those meets some reasonable conditions that many people would prefer to have -- for example, retaining control of your own device and data But I don't think these are a reasonable conditions. And I don't think many people want them - I think the number is probably absolutely tiny. I think using legislation to force Apple to accomodate the unreasonable and abstract preferences of a tiny number of people from a group that isn't specially protected is morally unjust. But I won't keep arguing it further as I think we probably just have different morals. |
|
|
So we can see. That doesn't mean they wouldn't be in the interests of owners of Apple devices, or that Apple shouldn't be prevented from exploiting its dominant position to restrict the market to the detriment of those owners.
I wonder whether you'd be OK with an electricity supplier saying you're only allowed to plug in equipment they have approved and they can change the rules or revoke approvals any time they like. If you don't like it, you can go to the other electricity supplier, who will give you their list of acceptable equipment instead. If you want to use equipment from both lists, don't worry, just buy two houses. And of course no-one makes any equipment that isn't on either list, because there is no possibility you'd ever want to power anything that wasn't approved by at least one electricity supplier.
Or you can buy Car A that goes only to one set of locations, or Car B that goes only to another set. Other locations might be happy to welcome you, but even if they build the roads to reach them, your car will artificially prevent you from driving that way.