[pneill]

Correct. And this is not illegal.

Using the store analogy - when you purchase at a store, the store has a markup on the product (usually 40%) - you cannot demand the store take a different markup because a store down the street is selling it for less, you can't set up a sign in the store telling patrons they can get a better deal down the road, and you can't say you want to pay in a particular currency because you don't have any of the local currency in your wallet. The store can establish policies like this for any patron that enters.

[throwaw4y-plate]

I dont get this store analogy. Best Buy can't suppress the existence of Fry's, so I can go do business with Fry's if a bridge with best buy is burnt. Apple suppresses all competition.

And the legality has yet to be determined.

[52-6F-62]

And Apple can't suppress the existence of Google or any other platform company.

Personally, I bought an Apple device specifically because it was so locked down.

I don't understand the desire to dictate how a piece of software should operate in this case. Why should Apple be forced to make their software operate like Google's?

There are alternatives so nobody is forced to use Apple's platform if they don't want to. They can buy another. How is this not a case of buyer's remorse?

[throwaw4y-plate]

I'm sorry, i don't follow your argument.

E: and Google is no better.

[aaomidi]

> And this is not illegal.

Maybe it should be. This isn't just about Apple. It's about all e-waste as well.

The idea that I can't do anything with a perfectly workable device once the company providing software to it cuts it off is ridiculous.

How much waste are we producing because we think the company that made a physical device should have 100% say on what happens on said physical device?