> what is the difference between a clamped down App Store with arbitrary rules, and what China does with their Great Firewall?
1/Apple is based in a country that follows the rule of law, with checks and balances, and can be sued if it disobeys the law.
2/Apple does not have police, a military, or other means to force you to act against your will.
3/Apple does not prevent you from accessing information outside the country.
4/Apple does not coerce you to say things even if they are false.
5/Apple does not torture -- sorry, I mean "re-educate" -- Muslims.
Please, don't make specious arguments comparing your inability to install some app few people need to being oppressed under the thumb of the CCP. Let's turn down the dramatic volume a little, shall we?
The CCP "great firewall" excuse is, precisely, that it will keep "bad actors" away from the homeland, or "flies" as Den Xiaoping put it. We all know what is the real reason, though.
Apple uses the same excuse: security through arbitrary content control.
As other users have said, I could go and buy an Android phone, or I could even use no phone, why not? But that's not the point. The point is, I'm not buying a device from Apple, I'm just leasing it, with certain conditions. And that should be, in my opinion, not only against the law, but widely considered unethical.
You’re not leasing your phone: you don’t have to pay the owner for continued use of it or be forced to return it.
I get that you don’t like the current state of affairs, but your analogies aren’t good ones.
Ownership has never meant that you are free to do what you want with your property. You take the property as is, and sometimes there are even legal restrictions to what you can do with it. For example, I’m not allowed to build a slaughterhouse on my land.
> You’re not leasing your phone: you don’t have to pay the owner for continued use of it or be forced to return it.
Call it what you want. I pay a lump sum for something that doesn't technically belong to me. And, if I break their ToS, they reserve the right to disable it.
People are rightfully upset about carmakers putting common features behind a paywall. It seems appropriate that they would be too, if they were forbidden to use their car as they pleased.
> Ownership has never meant that you are free to do what you want with your property. You take the property as is, and sometimes there are even legal restrictions to what you can do with it. For example, I’m not allowed to build a slaughterhouse on my land.
This is absurd.
Of course the rule of the law forbids you from having a slaughterhouse in your land if you don't comply with regulations. The terms of the App Store are part of a contract, not a law. Contracts may be initially binding, but they may also be illegal after review, and I personally hope they are in this regard.
In other words, there is no law saying that I shall not distribute porn on the App Store, that is just Apple's prerogative.
On the other hand, if you are arguing that federal and state laws are equivalent to private contracts, then your previous point about the Great Firewall and the App Store is moot.
> I pay a lump sum for something that doesn't technically belong to me.
The physical object belongs to you, but property has never in the course of history meant "I can do whatever I want with something in my possession." Property rights are about possession and control, not necessarily about concrete objects. (That's why copyright and trademark is known as "intellectual property.") And control is rarely absolute.
> the law forbids you from having a slaughterhouse in your land if you don't comply with regulations
No, zoning regulations prohibit me from having a slaughterhouse on my land at all. Hell, I can't even build a multi-family residence on it.
> if you are arguing that federal and state laws are equivalent to private contracts
They are not, but legal enforcement is what makes contracts work - the "teeth," if you will. If everyone were free to flagrantly breach the terms of their contracts, chaos would result.
What you're asking for is for certain terms of contracts to be unlawful as contrary to public policy. And that's fine, but again, let's keep the hysterics and ludicrous comparisons to a minimum.
1/Apple is based in a country that follows the rule of law, with checks and balances, and can be sued if it disobeys the law.
2/Apple does not have police, a military, or other means to force you to act against your will.
3/Apple does not prevent you from accessing information outside the country.
4/Apple does not coerce you to say things even if they are false.
5/Apple does not torture -- sorry, I mean "re-educate" -- Muslims.
Please, don't make specious arguments comparing your inability to install some app few people need to being oppressed under the thumb of the CCP. Let's turn down the dramatic volume a little, shall we?