4 ms·

> Buying an iPhone and then demanding that it has to work Buying something used to mean something. If you're still beholden by company rules of a product you _

> Buying an iPhone and then demanding that it has to work Buying something used to mean something. If you're still beholden by company rules of a product you _bought_, you have been leasing/renting it. If I buy a house from a builder, and it came with a requirement that you can only use Amazon Ring cameras, or builder-approved groceries - you'd be pretty pissed.

FredPret 1y ago
No, I just wouldn't buy that house. But you're right, maybe we should invent a new word for a purchase that is encumbered by legal agreements or subscriptions.
lurking_swe 1y ago
i see you’ve never purchased a condo or lived within an HOA community. Furthermore, in the US (and some other countries), you don’t _actually_ own a house or it’s land. you own the rights to that house (a deed) as long as you continue paying your property taxes. see what happens when you stop paying uncle sam… it’s kind of like a subscription lol.
- FredPret 1y ago
  Civilization-as-a-service
_benton 1y ago
That's not a valid analogy. There isn't a "requirement" that you only use vanilla Apple software on an iPhone. More accurate would be that the house is set up for ring cameras and the builder doesn't support implementing any other type of camera system.
- ghusto 1y ago
  The house is set up for ring cameras and makes it either impossible or painful to use anything else. Not because of technical limitations, but in order to steer you away from competitors. Building something with it working in a particular way is fine, but building it in a particular way _in order_ for it not to work with competitors hurts everyone. I get the argument it's just because it makes their products work better, and call bullshit.
  - _benton 1y ago
    Then why not buy one of the multitude of houses that exist with alternative and open camera systems, that are also cheaper and more ubiquitous?
    - ghusto 1y ago
      In my case it's because I'm using another of their products (my Mac) that is _not_ locked down like the iDevices. My laptop doesn't lock me into my phone, but buying a phone that they have locked out of my laptop's special Apple-only APIs puts me at a disadvantage.

FredPret 1y ago

No, I just wouldn't buy that house. But you're right, maybe we should invent a new word for a purchase that is encumbered by legal agreements or subscriptions.

lurking_swe 1y ago

i see you’ve never purchased a condo or lived within an HOA community. Furthermore, in the US (and some other countries), you don’t _actually_ own a house or it’s land. you own the rights to that house (a deed) as long as you continue paying your property taxes. see what happens when you stop paying uncle sam… it’s kind of like a subscription lol.

FredPret 1y ago
Civilization-as-a-service

_benton 1y ago

That's not a valid analogy. There isn't a "requirement" that you only use vanilla Apple software on an iPhone. More accurate would be that the house is set up for ring cameras and the builder doesn't support implementing any other type of camera system.

ghusto 1y ago
The house is set up for ring cameras and makes it either impossible or painful to use anything else. Not because of technical limitations, but in order to steer you away from competitors. Building something with it working in a particular way is fine, but building it in a particular way _in order_ for it not to work with competitors hurts everyone. I get the argument it's just because it makes their products work better, and call bullshit.
- _benton 1y ago
  Then why not buy one of the multitude of houses that exist with alternative and open camera systems, that are also cheaper and more ubiquitous?
  - ghusto 1y ago
    In my case it's because I'm using another of their products (my Mac) that is _not_ locked down like the iDevices. My laptop doesn't lock me into my phone, but buying a phone that they have locked out of my laptop's special Apple-only APIs puts me at a disadvantage.