3 ms·
> Huh, the __user__ paid for the product, so they own it. After the user handed over their money, Apple has nothing to say about who I do business with on that
by _benton 1y ago
> Huh, the __user__ paid for the product, so they own it. After the user handed over their money, Apple has nothing to say about who I do business with on that product, or what the conditions are.
But this is already the case. You own the device, you can do whatever you want with it (legally ofc). If I buy a fridge without a freezer, the fact that I can't freeze food with it doesn't mean I don't own the fridge.
Furthermore I don't appreciate other companies using the legal system to profit by forcing Apple to design their products in a specific way.
- bitpush 1y ago[flagged]
- _benton 1y agoIt does hurt when I can no longer purchase a product that I want because other corporations wish to use the legal system to make more money, yes.
- bitpush 1y ago[flagged]
- _benton 1y agoThis seems like a bad faith argument. But if you're being serious, I can buy non-nike shoes in the same way you can buy non-Apple phones. If anything, the people complaining about Apple would be upset by the lawsuit because they want to buy an iPhone despite other options being available. And in that case, the alternatives are cheaper not more expensive in the case of ethically made shoes.
- aspenmayer 1y agoWhen the analogy obscures more than it reveals, it ceases to be a reasoning aid, and becomes a red herring.
- tomhow 1y agoThis is a needlessly escalatory and inflammatory comment, and the kind of comment that's out of line on HN. It's fine to disagree and counter someone else's comment, but not by breaking the guidelines like this.
- tomhow 1y ago> Aww, does it hurt when your favorite multi-trillion dollar company is taken to court? Please don't sneer or mock like this on HN. It's not what HN is for and it destroys what it is for. Please read the guidelines and make an effort to observe them in future. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- amelius 1y agoIf you pay for a product and it is tied to a vendor, then you should be able to completely break all ties with that vendor and switch to a different service provider, and still be able to use the product as advertised. Otherwise you don't own the product. This basic premise doesn't hold for Apple products. And by the way, I think consumer rights are more important than rights of companies to do whatever they want.
- noirscape 1y agoTo give an idea on how much this holds true: I have an old iphone lying around somewhere. It's a perfectly functioning device (barring the battery), I have a cable for it and everything. I wanted to use it as an audio player - plug an AUX cable in it, play some tunes. It's a good way to reuse older phones. Except I can't activate the fucking thing. It demands a SIM card. Trying to activate or reset it on PC just has iTunes spit out a generic failure message. Apparently it can't contact some activation server. I have a perfectly usable iPhone. Apple decided on its own that it's a brick now. It's irrevocably tied to the vendor.
- izacus 1y agoYour freezer doesn't ask for 30% of every grocery you buy and doesn't forbid you from storing a broccoli in it just because the broccoli company didn't pay the tax to the fridge maker. Every time you make those comparisons it becomes much clearer just how much of an overreach and danger to market capitalism Apples behaviour is.