4 ms·

Your argument is that the people know that they are only two harmful smartphone systems from Google and Apple. And therefore it is the people’s fault to choose

Your argument is that the people know that they are only two harmful smartphone systems from Google and Apple. And therefore it is the people’s fault to choose one? > Choose between death or ban! < Ban? > Okay. Death through ban. People have the right to modify, repair or maintain their property - within boundaries of law (e.g. you can use tires of your choice on your bicycle - but you cannot remove the belts in a car and drive on public roads). In the past we enforced regularly features for devices. Interoperability should be a general requirement! Exceptions apply only if the manufacturer is able to explain why it isn’t possible or a new standard is required. Back to normal. PS: Your argument is neglecting lacking knowledge by 90% of customers and the mass-effect by this group. People do not understand software.

RamblingCTO 3y ago
> People have the right to modify, repair or maintain their property In all honesty, I think this just isn't true with networked software anymore and I don't think we can solve this properly. It's not a simple lawnmower but exists in a bigger context. As Apple/Google etc. need to spend more work and money afterwards, it's not as simple as "it's muh property" but get's a lot more complex. > Your argument is neglecting lacking knowledge by 90% of customers and the mass-effect by this group. That was an argument in 2006, I don't think it is 18 years later. And in all honesty, I don't believe people care. Otherwise they wouldn't buy Alexa or stupid adware in the form of TVs. They know, they just don't care.