> Apple on the other hand wants to prevent parts from falling in the wrong hands
What? Why? Are they like nuclear bombs? What happens if an iPhone screen gets into a wrong hand?
Its shocking to me, that in your mind my right to keep my phone repaired is somehow comparable to Apple's right to prevent me from buying (not stealing) a replacement part.
It means the manufacturer retains ownership and control over an item after they sold it. You are giving them a lot of control over your life, many years in the future - they often refuse repair or impose oneirous terms. This creates insentive for them to consider your phone 'their terf' and to create artificial obstacles to repair by third parties.
This does not stop at Apple, it happens to cars, farm equipment, household appliances, et .
This is a total capitulation of right to private property. You are basically going to become a medieval serf, but with mutiple owners.
> What? Why? Are they like nuclear bombs? What happens if an iPhone screen gets into a wrong hand?
Does it matter?
I’m stating as a fact of matter what their interest is in a comment in which I try to describe the interests of both sides of the equation (with reasonable efforts made to be accurate).
You make the mistake of reading that and attributing it as a personal opinion of mine and then proceed to get all worked up and making false equivalencies in a strained effort to make your point.
The fact of the matter is, for better or for worse, that they are free to decide who they want to do business with (pending some legislative changes here and there).
What their reason is for doing business with one, but not with another, is neither here nor there but if i had to venture a guess I’d say it probably has to do with the prolific market of fake Apple devices.
> It’s shocking to me, that in your mind my right to keep my phone repaired is somehow comparable to Apple's right to prevent me from buying (not stealing) a replacement part.
It’s shocking to me that you present the argument in such a way that the only logical conclusion is for you and me to encroach on Apple’s property rights by being able to dictate if and how they sell their property to us.
And what is the basis of this? Apparently according to you, your property rights are so broad, that it includes access to someone else’s property lest you be deemed a medieval serf of all things.
Drama much?
It needn’t be this complicated nor dramatic. When you purchase an iPhone the iPhone (i.e. the physical device and the physical components it contains) become your property.
You can do with that property as you wish, but those property rights decidedly don’t lend you any rights over other components Apple might produce.
To suggest that your purchase somehow grants you any entitlement to components that weren’t part of the initial sale is outright bizarre, regardless of whether you assert that the entitlement exists outright or as an option for purchase.
What? Why? Are they like nuclear bombs? What happens if an iPhone screen gets into a wrong hand?
Its shocking to me, that in your mind my right to keep my phone repaired is somehow comparable to Apple's right to prevent me from buying (not stealing) a replacement part.
It means the manufacturer retains ownership and control over an item after they sold it. You are giving them a lot of control over your life, many years in the future - they often refuse repair or impose oneirous terms. This creates insentive for them to consider your phone 'their terf' and to create artificial obstacles to repair by third parties.
This does not stop at Apple, it happens to cars, farm equipment, household appliances, et .
This is a total capitulation of right to private property. You are basically going to become a medieval serf, but with mutiple owners.