> Likewise, in my analogy I find the limitations of your analogy artifical and thus irrelevant. Other people thinking about the trade-offs aren't bound by whet

> Likewise, in my analogy I find the limitations of your analogy artifical and thus irrelevant. Other people thinking about the trade-offs aren't bound by whether you decide that in the whole supply chain only the manufacturer's limits should be considered. So while you're free to arbitrarily limit your thinking, that won't help you answer questions like "Why do computers get this special treatment of vendor lockdown, but not any other product?" > reason is increased profit rather than increased security. That's fine, but we shouldn't rely on vendor motivation anyway, so the validity of your assessment doesn't help us decide when the increased security is worth it > You're missing the entire point here You've cut your quote off to make it seem so. I've explicitly mentioned the perception in the very next sentence > but there aren't nearly as many people who defend the warranty practices you just mentioned. That would depend entirely on the specific tech involved and other factors. Are you sure people defending software vendor lockdowns would not defend some limits for parts for nuclear plants? For guns? Also why did you skip the "for some parts there is actually not even an alternative" practice? Would fewer people defend the right of a manufacturer to also manufature parts for sale (forcing some kind of divestment so that the "vendor" doesn't get an extra "fee" from the parts business)?