A free market doesn't grant unlimited rights to any company. Microsoft developed their software, sold it how they decided it should be sold, and have gotten their corporate asses slapped in court many a time for unfair business practices. The market has rules, and consumers have rights.
I'd agree with you there, but only to a certain extent. The issue is, I don't know if they are, and that's at least arguable, but if they're intentionally disabling phones as a way of retaliation instead of as an indirect result of necessary software updates, the courts will have to decide if that's fair or not. And since the only way to prove they're not in court might be with revealing their code, Apple themselves might decide it's not worth the fight.
You know, people love to say that, but lawsuits are part of a free market as well. The courts are there to be arbiters between two disagreeing partners. To the more powerless party of a dispute, they're invaluable in leveling the field (to the extent that the quality of the litigators can be dismissed) against a gigantic corporation. Consider the alternative, if courts weren't out there to decide who's right. Would you like that better? Do you think consumers would ever win if the free market was left to its own devices? Sometimes, consumers should own up to their practices, it's true. But many times corporations are the ones who should do so. And in the game of free market retaliation, Apple's power to hurt a single consumer with disabling a $600 device is much greater than that single consumer's power to hurt Apple, a multibillion dollar company, by deciding not to buy their products, and that's why the free market can't balance itself, so courts are needed. And also, this whole Americans in court thing isn't really fair either. I'm not American, and heck, I don't even own an iPhone. But it's the EU who has taken Microsoft to the courts time after time. And kudos to them for that.
I agree with you! We need a court system to decide what is fair, but it can get out of hand is all I was saying (I guess I was getting heated and off subject a little, mostly I get mad when people sue for things like "Eating McDonald's made me fat, etc. - Well yeah, fatty foods make people fat... DUH!)
But back to the subject of free market, Courts or no courts, Apple has made a product and decided what it's intended use was. They are within their rights to do that. Maybe that should be questioned, but I personally do not believe it should be. If I hurt myself at work becasue I am using a piece ofs afety equipment inproperly, guess what? It was my fault, not the company that made the safety device. That is called personal responsibility. Same issue here.
Now let's say that Apple IS bricking phones purposely (Which would be a very bad move for their reputation). That is their choice. They may piss off a lot of customers, but should they be legally allowed to do that? YES! I belive tha answer is yes, as long as it can be shown that the purpose of doing it was to discourage the alteration of their product or its intended use, which in this case, has already been addressed.
In even simpler, albeit perhaps a little immature, terms, let's for a moment say you start a lemonade stand, and sell glasses of fresh lemonade for 50 cents a glass. Well, some people come along and buy your lemonade, but find out that putting some kind of drug in there mixed with the amount of sugar you use in your lemonade makes for an amazing trip, high, whatever. Well, someone goes and gets themselves hurt or killed by doing this. Are you to blame? Hopefully, the laws and courts would protect your rights as well and say NO, it was not your fault that someone altered your recipe and damaged your product or themselves. I know that is a radical and kind of lame example, but it's the same thing. The law should protect the consumer, yes, but we also have to look out for the business. Apple has a right to protect the integrity of their product.
Basically, what that is saying is that if you purchase their product, then you should purchase their product as is. If you would like it to be better, in a free market economy, yo uare free to go out and make it better, but the law should protect Apple by saying you need to start from scratch so as not to underhandedly take their business and their product. How do we make the items better? Start with theirs and improve on it, that is why hacking is okay. But when you do that, be prepared to accept the risk that Apple might not be so supportive of you altering their design.
