Well, some people just love their chains. It is ok, I guess, their right to agree to bondage. But why do they insist that everyone else should be as enslaved as they are themselves?
And yes,I've seen Macs of average users. Never saw anything really wrong there. You are exaggerating the issue.
This false argument is done to death by Apple apologists. Apple sells the device, but somehow feels itself entitled to control what the user can and can't do to it even after sale. It shouldn't be their business which apps a user wants to run on the device.
Why don't you address it then? There is a world of more open software and hardware out there if you want that freedom. Why should everyone be subject to exactly the product you want?
It was addressed a lot of times before, but OK, I'll do it again.
You see, you too want the product I am describing, but you are too myopic to understand it. Maybe it is because you come from a better place than I, where the government does not actively censor app stores. Imagine, that some day Apple will remove the app you use, would you still say 'ok, I knew what product I bought'?
With iOS devices, you don't buy a product that can run a set of apps. You buy a product where the app you use may stop working any day, because some random moderator or executive at Apple will decide this way.
>You buy a product where the app you use may stop working any day
This has happened to me with more products than I can count on both the Mac and PC side and with nearly every mobile device I've ever used. Tons of apps on SymbianOS and Windows Mobile that worked on one device didn't work on the next device I bought. The current environment is a vast improvement on everything that came before it.
Maybe that's why you're being so condescending. We've lived through the evolution that got us here while you, quite clearly, think that open, by default, equals better simply because it's better for you as an individual. There are many, many people that view the iPhone environment and Apple's ecosystem as the better option. They're obviously all wrong.
You failed to understand that there are no options for iPhone apps market, and users are open to all kinds of abuse: by Apple themselves and by authoritarian governments like in China or Russia. Now, I happen to live in an authoritarian country and I'm kinda more inclined to be not ok with the company that removes access to apps that fail to give up user data to government crooks.
You claim that users 'agree' to this when they buy Apple devices. But to what exactly that agree? That apple can take away any app they use, any time? Even the one that was perfectly available when buying the device?
The 'deal' you get with apple by buying their hardware can be altered at any time, so the only thing you can do is pray that they don't alter it any further.
Apple doesn't need me to carry water for them, but you're actually damaging the case for open hardware and software by carrying on like a porkchop because closed hardware and software is also available.
> You claim that users 'agree' to this when they buy Apple devices.
I claimed no such thing. Read my words directly and please don't put your own spin on them.
In a market where both options exist why should one change to be like the one you prefer?
Yeah. Just read this fresh news: "Google is apparently taking down all/most fediverse apps from the Play Store" [1]. To quote source:
"Google is apparently taking down all/most fediverse apps from google play on the grounds that that some servers in the fediverse engage in hate speech"
And yes,I've seen Macs of average users. Never saw anything really wrong there. You are exaggerating the issue.