4 ms·
You stated the opposite above, which is what GP argued against.
by croon 2y ago
You stated the opposite above, which is what GP argued against.
- Jowsey 2y agoI assume there's just a "not be" missing somewhere
- throwaway48476 2y agoI believe I was consistent. Perhaps you believe that because apple had once paid for the devices that they should still be able to exercise control of them post sale to a user. This is a violation of ownership and of the first sale doctrine.
- croon 2y agoI believe the same, but that is besides the point. I think the misunderstanding stems from your original post, which I think you should reread. You state that "Apple should allowed [sic] to block apps from third party app stores on devices they paid for". No mention of users or owners rights post purchase. Did you mean "should not be"? But long thread about nothing, I was just trying to clear up the misunderstanding.
- wiseowise 2y agoIt was a joke that Apple can control software on devices that they (Apple) paid for. Since it’s they user that pays money - they should be in charge of the software.