[Zambyte]

> Are you saying that the laws governing digital markets should vary based on a manufacturer's current marketing strategy?

Definitely not. Hence why I said:

> In reality they're all equally bad.

People who own a computer should have full control over their devices, full stop. I don't care if it's Apple, Google, Nintendo, whomever. They shouldn't have any say in what a computer can and can't do after they sold it.

[simondotau]

To be fair though, Apple doesn't "have a say" in what you do with your computer after it's sold to you. You can do whatever you want with your computer hardware. Where they DO have a say is in what their software does, software which you don't own. You're merely granted a license to use it. It sucks, but that's how intellectual property works in today's world.

If you want to make an argument for requiring Apple (et al) to provide straightforward mechanisms for rejecting the supplied software and installing alternative operating systems (e.g. Asahi Linux) then I'll support it to the ends of the earth. I'd be your most vocal supporter. I'd be delighted if this was a legal requirement of all computer hardware, from mainframes to microwaves.

If you want to make an argument for software developers (operating system or otherwise) to be legally required to make their software do anything their customers demands it do (or what another billion dollar corporation like Epic Games demands) then I think that's utterly mad. What would be the self-limiting principle other than to only apply it to exceptionally successful products, with the threshold of success defined by lobbyists of competitors/opponents?

[Zambyte]

> You can do whatever you want with your computer hardware.

You can't swap the batteries between two iPhones that you purchased directly from Apple. It's probably true of other components too, but I am certain about the batteries.

> If you want to make an argument for software developers (operating system or otherwise) to be legally required to make their software do anything their customers demands it do (or what another billion dollar corporation like Epic Games demands) then I think that's utterly mad.

I think they should be legally required to not impose restrictions on what the user does with the software that is on the hardware that is sold to them. That means: Free Software all the way down. Obviously Apple shouldn't be legally obligated to do what people want them to do with their software. What I am saying is that it should be illegal for Apple to stop others from doing what others want with their software.

[simondotau]

> You can't swap the batteries between two iPhones

You absolutely can. Whether the software likes it is another matter. If you don't want to be under the thumb of an operating system, don't use it.

> What I am saying is that it should be illegal for Apple to stop others from doing what others want with their software.

And that's where I simply disagree. I am an immense fan of the GPL (version 2 especially) and I recognise that the GPL license requires intellectual property rights in order to work. You want copyleft worth a damn? You need copyright. And that means you get copyright. Apple has intellectual property rights over their software and that doesn't give anyone else the right to "do whatever they want" with it.

If you want to cancel all intellectual property rights with respect to software, that's an interesting argument to make. But cancelling it under a few rare circumstances when some software irritates you seems like the height of absurdity.

[Zambyte]

> If you don't want to be under the thumb of an operating system, don't use it.

How do you do that without replacing the hardware?

> You want copyleft worth a damn?

I don't. I want a world without copyright, and I recognize that means taking copyleft with it.

> If you want to cancel all intellectual property rights with respect to software

My desire is more radical: I wish for a world without intellectual propery. Yes, that includes patents, trademarks, and creative copyright. Of course they all have different implications, but I really believe the world with be a better place without all of them. They each mainly serve to better their "owners" (almost exclusively not the creators) rather than better humanity.

[simondotau]

> How do you do that without replacing the hardware?

As I said earlier—

If you want to make an argument for requiring Apple (et al) to provide straightforward mechanisms for rejecting the supplied software and installing alternative operating systems (e.g. Asahi Linux) then I'll support it to the ends of the earth. I'd be your most vocal supporter. I'd be delighted if this was a legal requirement of all computer hardware, from mainframes to microwaves.

> I wish for a world without intellectual propery.

Cool, but appreciate that this places you in an extreme minority position, and one which destroys your own argument. Without copyright, you don't get to assert any implied rights which normally come from "buying" software. Without copyright, you received nothing of value from Apple except the hardware. If Apple don't own the software that's on YOUR device, they cannot be held responsible for what it does.