[stale2002]

> Why should companies not be allowed to compete along this axis of features?

They can be allowed to compete in those features. That's fine. But people should also be allowed to do whatever they want with devices that they own.

Including getting it fixed by a 3rd party.

> Surely the markets have spoken

No, the market has not spoken. Because Apple will sue you if you try to do independent repairs, without going through them.

[ghostwriter]

> No, the market has not spoken. Because Apple will sue you if you try to do independent repairs, without going through them.

can't you just avoid Apple and buy phones that are easier to repair? That's how market works.

[stale2002]

> can't you just avoid Apple and buy phones that are easier to repair? That's how market works.

It is absolutely not a market if Apple is suing people for engaging in voluntary trade.

You can feel free to not support markets, if you don't like. It sounds to me like you do not support free markets.

But please do not pretend that it is a free market, when Apple is literally suing people, for engaging in voluntary trade regarding devices that they own.

[ghostwriter]

> But please do not pretend that it is a free market, when Apple is literally suing people, for engaging in voluntary trade regarding devices that they own.

In a free market, if a company acts inadequately, you stop any interaction with it, you stop providing service to its customers, and go to its competitor or create your own competing platform, and try to get as many customers with you as you can.

Please do not pretend that the market is Apple alone, and that you have no other choice but to demand the government to take an action against the company whose policies and actions you don't approve of, it's a very infantile position to hold and it hurts the free market that you seem to care about. Free market has never meant "expect a fair play from everyone", it means that there's enough economic clout and capital out there to drive unfair competitors out. And if you appeal to the government's monopoly on physical coercion, you are not acting as a proponet of free markets.

[stale2002]

> In a free market, if a company acts inadequately, you stop any interaction with it, you stop providing service to its customers

No, actually. Those customers should have the right to deal with whoever they want. That is how free markets work. They work by not having the government go after people.

> and go to its competitor or create your own competing platform

Or, instead of that, those customers, who own their own devices, should be allowed to do whatever they want with things that they own. That is a free market. Get government out of the way, and don't allow Apple's lawsuits against people.

> that you have no other choice but to demand the government to take an action

It is not me who wants the government to do something. Instead, that is Apple. Apple is the one who is using the government to engage in physical coercion against people.

I want Apple to not have the right to sue people. Government needs to get out of the way, and Apple needs to stop using to government to fight against free markets.

A free market would be the government ignoring Apple's lawsuits against other people.

> And if you appeal to the government's monopoly on physical coercion

Lets get rid of that government monopoly and coercion by removing Apple's ability to sue these people then!

I agree. Lets not use physical coercion. And the way that we do that, is to not allow Apple to use the government to go after people.

> Free market has never meant "expect a fair play from everyone"

I don't want fair play from Apple. Instead, I just want them to not have the ability to use physical coercion against others, by them using government backed forced against others, through their lawsuits.

> it hurts the free market that you seem to care about.

You are the one who is trying very hard to ignore the real physical coercion that Apple is using against others, through their government backed, and government supported lawsuits.

Lets get rid of that. All of the lawsuit and physical coercion that Apple is using against other people should be thrown out, and the lawsuits that Apple is using should be completely ignored by the government.

[ghostwriter]

> No, actually. Those customers should have the right to deal with whoever they want.

They shouldn't, a notion of rights does not include any material implementation of these rights for you by other people. If you disagree, then please make sure that I deal with Tesla and SpaceX on my terms next week, because I definitely want it.

If you find that Apple acts as an abuser in an abusive relationship, you just cut all ties with the abuser. I've never heard of anyone suggesting a victim that "they should have a right to continue living with that person" or that "there's a right to coerce the abuser into the comfortable co-living with the victim".

Again, free market doesn't imply absence of unfair practices. It implies that there's no force that is able to chain you to the abuser.

[stale2002]

> They shouldn't, a notion of rights does not include any material implementation of these rights for you by other people

This is about the customers rights. They should have a right to do whatever they want with there own devices, and buy repair services from anyone who chooses to deal with them.

I am not saying it is " for you by other people. ", so I am not sure why you are making this up, when that is clearly not what I meant. I repeated the same point, like 6 times, so I thought my point was clear, but somehow you ignored it.

Instead, I am saying that both these customers, and other companies, should have a right to deal with each other, if both agree, and an unrelated 3rd party, Apple, should have no ability to stop it by them using government force, which Apple is doing.

And if you don't agree in this voluntary trade, then you don't believe in free markets.

> If you find that Apple acts as an abuser in an abusive relationship

I find that they are using government force against others.

> you just cut all ties with the abuser

Well, the people who actually support free markets want to remove Apple's ability to use government force against others.

That is what we want to do. We want to get rid of their government supported coercion that they are using against others.

> "they should have a right to continue living with that person

I don't want a right to force Apple to deal with me. If they don't want to sell iPhones to people, they don't have to.

Instead, I want to remove Apple's ability to use government force against others, for engaging in voluntary trade. For example, Apple should not be able to sue anyone for voluntarily using 3rd party repair services.

> It implies that there's no force that is able to chain you to the abuser.

But there IS force! Apple is literally using government force against others. Stop ignoring this point. Lets get rid of that force that Apple is using against others.

I will repeat once again, so that this is clear.

You said "It implies that there's no force". I am saying that Apple is using force against others, through government support lawsuits, and I want to take away Apple's ability to use this force against others. Lets get rid of their ability to sue people, for voluntarily buying from 3rd party repair shops.

This is the point that I am making, and you keep ignoring it.

I made like 6 sentences where I repeated this exact same point, and somehow you ignored them multiple times that I repeated the same point, over and over again.