5 ms·

i applaude you to sticking to your principles and voting with your dollar, however i do not share your sentiment about walled gardens. and when it comes to eth

i applaude you to sticking to your principles and voting with your dollar, however i do not share your sentiment about walled gardens. and when it comes to ethics, same argument can be made for apple with regarda to users controlling their hardware. (if) you are informed about the limitations of said hardware and general terms under which you bought it, then they have every right to protect their business model. it makes no sense to me to force a company to change the foundation of their business, and i dont wanna hear about “minor cutting” into their profits, the ROI is not something that should be adjusted by a 3rd party after consenting entities made a contract, and one side decides that it no longer wishes to honor it. im not in favor of forbidding the things you listed, apple is not without sin, and they wouldnt suffer much with the legislation being changed, but i believe that the scale and trade off of the consequences should not be a factor in deciding whether we stick to a principal of honoring legally binding contracts, even if it’s EULA that might seem unfair. those issues mustn’t be adressed post factum and uncoerced consumers should not be coddled.

syshum 8y ago
My position in somewhere in the middle, some of the Right to repair laws go a little too far for me, however what I do 100% oppose is Apple being able to use copyright, trademark, and import laws to block people from disseminating repair information and parts that were re manufactured, repaired, or even reverse engineered. I do not believe a business has a "right to protect their business model" and while i do not believe they should be forced to sell me parts or provide me with detailed technical manuals, they should also not be allowed to prevent 3rd parties from filling that market, or put in technical blocks with the sole intention of preventing repairs Things like Locking the screen and sysem board to each other in firmware preventing people from changing and repairing said devices also IMO crosses that line for me, this is currently being done on the newer iphones. It is not simply about ownership either it is a massive ecological concern. Apples ewaste program like all other electronics manufactures is laughable at best. On the topics of contracts and EULA's contract law is fascinating topic, one of the reason EULA's are considered by some to be unenforceable in any real measure is most of them as written would not be classified as an enforceable contract. Contracts have keys things that many EULA's lack, further it is not uncommon for entirely one sided contracts in other area's to be considered by the courts to be unenforceable as well. This is why you see many employment agreements fail if their enforcement actually goes to a court. So no my statements do not in any way undermine our current foundation of honoring contracts, we already have mechanisms in place to render unfair, one sided contracts like abusive EULA's void in the courts as it is.

syshum 8y ago

My position in somewhere in the middle, some of the Right to repair laws go a little too far for me, however what I do 100% oppose is Apple being able to use copyright, trademark, and import laws to block people from disseminating repair information and parts that were re manufactured, repaired, or even reverse engineered. I do not believe a business has a "right to protect their business model" and while i do not believe they should be forced to sell me parts or provide me with detailed technical manuals, they should also not be allowed to prevent 3rd parties from filling that market, or put in technical blocks with the sole intention of preventing repairs Things like Locking the screen and sysem board to each other in firmware preventing people from changing and repairing said devices also IMO crosses that line for me, this is currently being done on the newer iphones. It is not simply about ownership either it is a massive ecological concern. Apples ewaste program like all other electronics manufactures is laughable at best. On the topics of contracts and EULA's contract law is fascinating topic, one of the reason EULA's are considered by some to be unenforceable in any real measure is most of them as written would not be classified as an enforceable contract. Contracts have keys things that many EULA's lack, further it is not uncommon for entirely one sided contracts in other area's to be considered by the courts to be unenforceable as well. This is why you see many employment agreements fail if their enforcement actually goes to a court. So no my statements do not in any way undermine our current foundation of honoring contracts, we already have mechanisms in place to render unfair, one sided contracts like abusive EULA's void in the courts as it is.