1. We had serviceable devices and vehicles for ages. There was an equally tiny group of people who knew how to service them. However, everyone used to benefit because they paid those tiny group to do it for them. They benefited because those servicemen had incentives that were more aligned with the consumers, than with the manufacturers.
2. This is not like asking the OEMs to develop a feature that serves a tiny group. The size of that group is no excuse to go out of their way to restrict them. This is an explicitly hostile and actively malicious move. That's why I said your mother's unwillingness to use the feature is no excuse to deny the same to others. But you ignored that argument altogether.
3. The 'tiny slice' is not nearly as tiny or insignificant as you'd like others to believe. Plenty of people, especially the teenagers and the youth like to tinker around with devices. The success and popularity of earlier Arduino and Raspberry Pi are undeniable testimony to that. It's also from this group of tinkerers who started from their garage that we got the next generation of innovators like Bill Gates and Steve Wozniak. These sort of restrictions deny the next generation their own such pioneers and the free-market competition.
OEMs rely on misleading and dishonest arguments like this to gaslight the consumers into unfair deals and squeeze out every bit of unfair profit. In a fair world, such attempts would be strongly condemned and penalized with a loss of marketshare. And it's about time that became a reality.
However, my question wasn't that at all. My question was, what's your motivation in repeating their argument here? How does such an anti-consumer argument help you in any way? Is it consumer Stockholm syndrome?
1. We had serviceable devices and vehicles for ages. There was an equally tiny group of people who knew how to service them. However, everyone used to benefit because they paid those tiny group to do it for them. They benefited because those servicemen had incentives that were more aligned with the consumers, than with the manufacturers.
2. This is not like asking the OEMs to develop a feature that serves a tiny group. The size of that group is no excuse to go out of their way to restrict them. This is an explicitly hostile and actively malicious move. That's why I said your mother's unwillingness to use the feature is no excuse to deny the same to others. But you ignored that argument altogether.
3. The 'tiny slice' is not nearly as tiny or insignificant as you'd like others to believe. Plenty of people, especially the teenagers and the youth like to tinker around with devices. The success and popularity of earlier Arduino and Raspberry Pi are undeniable testimony to that. It's also from this group of tinkerers who started from their garage that we got the next generation of innovators like Bill Gates and Steve Wozniak. These sort of restrictions deny the next generation their own such pioneers and the free-market competition.
OEMs rely on misleading and dishonest arguments like this to gaslight the consumers into unfair deals and squeeze out every bit of unfair profit. In a fair world, such attempts would be strongly condemned and penalized with a loss of marketshare. And it's about time that became a reality.
However, my question wasn't that at all. My question was, what's your motivation in repeating their argument here? How does such an anti-consumer argument help you in any way? Is it consumer Stockholm syndrome?