There are several arguments in that comment that are fair and reasonable, sometimes. However, they tend to be the exception rather than the rule. We should not

There are several arguments in that comment that are fair and reasonable, sometimes. However, they tend to be the exception rather than the rule. We should not allow owner-hostile vendors to hide behind them as excuses for measures like lock-in mechanisms and planned obsolescence that are not necessary. If an item really does have the potential to become harmful in some way if it is not properly used and maintained, the burden should be on the vendor and/or manufacturer to demonstrate that in order to justify any restrictions on its use or maintenance. Such demonstrations and restrictions should be subject to regulatory oversight by consumer protection agencies or similar bodies. If they are found to be unjustified by a competent authority then the burden should be on the vendor and/or manufacturer to either make things right or compensate those who bought the product (including reasonable consequential losses, not just the purchase price).