[hks0]

Can't Apple say in this case "I'm selling you this package under the condition that you accept you don't fully own it, and if you're not happy with that, don't buy it".

I don't like this hypothetical (or maybe real) argument from Apple, but can't answer it either.

Update; well, here's the answer to that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44427725

[happymellon]

Because you can't sign away your rights no matter how much some people wish it were true.

It doesn't matter if your gym includes a clause in their contract stating that they are not liable, even through their neglect. If they cause harm through neglect then they are liable.

[adastra22]

No, the point is that we should not allow such contractual arrangements. You buy the software, you should own it. Regulations are often required to enforce this.

[thfuran]

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that we shouldn't allow that sort of contract at all, but it should be considered fraudulent to call it selling or what the customer does buying. If you're only offering limited right of use subject to conditions and restrictions, then you're offering something else entirely. And the limitations should be required to be clearly conveyed before money is exchanged.

[devmor]

It's important to note that we do have contracts like that already. They're called equipment leases.

But those types of contracts also have obligations on the seller, which is why Apple and similar companies don't want to have to treat their equipment that way and would rather call it "selling" with an asterisk.

[devmor]

Well yeah, they can and do say that.

My stance and others that align with me are that ownership in trade is an inalienable right and their statement should be challenged.