See my other reply to sibling. If this is how you operate, you are welcome to purchase or build hardware that better reflects your needs. Forcing a private company to modify their product, which people are happily paying for, because you personally disagree is a stretch. The better argument is that other entities whom you pay (government; tax, bank; fees) shall allow non Play or Apple store interfaces to their services, and not supporting this is an abdication of their responsibility to you.

▲

fluoridation 8 days ago | parent [-]

>Forcing a private company to modify their product

You have it backwards. The consumer is the one who pays for the product, he's the ones who should get a say of what does or doesn't run on it. You would not accept the same restrictions of any other kind of device. You would think it's an overreach for a printer manufacturer to design its printers so they only accept ink cartridges it approves.

▲

L_226 8 days ago | parent [-]

Yes - and the consumer is choosing to buy this product. You can't claim that the vendor should change the product after it has been purchased.

No I don't think it is overreach, I think it is good business. Other institutions (usually, ideally) put constraints on capitalism, through e.g. mandating USB-C, which could also be applied to printer cartridges. A printer company could even do a Patagonia, and make the most environmentally friendly, reusable, printer system available and make it part of their branding.

	▲	fluoridation 8 days ago \| parent [-]
		>You can't claim that the vendor should change the product after it has been purchased. The vendor is changing the product after it has been purchased, by removing features through software updates.