>> Apple should not have the right to enforce those conditions to begin with
Apple is not a state-owned company. They can do whatever they like, and you can choose to support them by purchasing their stock and/or their products. You can choose not to support them by purchasing neither their stock or their products.
There are several federal and state laws that define what they "can not do", and this isn't one of them. Why should a business owner(s) "not have the right" to run their business any way they see fit, so long as they do not violate the law?
Your analogy to MS doesn't hold water - MS was told not to do something by a governing authority, and they did it anyway. The governing authority stepped in and enforced their rules - nothing out of the ordinary there.
Thats not really true. There are a multitude of anti monopoly laws and consumer protections that may apply to Apple's actions.
> Why should a business owner(s) "not have the right" to run their business any way they see fit
Because one company having too much market power, and being in an oligopoly type situation is bad.
Because we have consumer protection laws for a reason.
Because when a consumer buys a device, they have the legal right to do whatever the heck they want with it, and Apple tried, and failed, to sue consumers for doing things to devices that the consumer owns.
The courts have sided quite a few times in favor of consumers, regarding how they have the legal right to do what they want with devices that they own.
And if the current laws don't 100% cover this situation that we are in right now, then hopefully the law will be reinterpreted to apply to it.
But even beyond that, it makes perfect sense to criticize, and retaliate against, companies that hurt consumers, and try to take away their rights.
Apple is a chief offending, in just how many bad things that they have done, to try to take away consumer's legal rights to doing what they want with devices that the consumer owns. They tried, and failed, to sue people. This deserves to be criticized, and retailiated against.
Laws can be changed. I argued that they should be changed in order to limit Apples power. I mentioned Microsoft b/c of their importance then, Android/Apple is the same (but duopoly) now.
We limit what business owners can do for 'greater good' in quite some areas. I think it is necessary here too. Apple: enforce access, Android: limit data snooping.
Apple is not a state-owned company. They can do whatever they like, and you can choose to support them by purchasing their stock and/or their products. You can choose not to support them by purchasing neither their stock or their products.
There are several federal and state laws that define what they "can not do", and this isn't one of them. Why should a business owner(s) "not have the right" to run their business any way they see fit, so long as they do not violate the law?
Your analogy to MS doesn't hold water - MS was told not to do something by a governing authority, and they did it anyway. The governing authority stepped in and enforced their rules - nothing out of the ordinary there.