If and when I want a device I can tinker endlessly with, that’s very available to me already.

I have some of them.

What I don’t have is a desire to actively deny consumers a “just works” option that is extremely safe and reliable. No caveats. That would be of minor benefit to me and a detriment to many millions of people in general.

The market spoke, and a huge number of people want those. That’s fine and should remain their choice to make.

The real tragedy of outlawing Apples approach is that the only reason people want this ability is because Apple created this whole package that everyone wants.

tldr; It’s an extraordinarily selfish thing to insist on at everyone else’s expense. I’m ok doing without the one thing.

▲

rustcleaner an hour ago | parent [-]

>If and when I want a device I can tinker endlessly with, that’s very available to me already.

>What I don’t have is a desire to actively deny consumers a “just works” option that is extremely safe and reliable. No caveats.

False dichotomy. Nothing about the latter means the former can't also be possible. Apple products disrespect customers in the name of the latter, telling them the former is dangerous and must be limited. I am concluding that only iron fisted pro-customer sovereignty "Apple Laws" can stop Apple and similar, as their customers themselves can't muster a wallet revolt against this business model.

	▲	dd8601fn 43 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Those two things are mutually exclusive here. You can't have that ecosystem and all the things people buy it for and have unrestricted control of it all. Those can't exist together. And iPhone buyers aren't an oppressed people. They bought what they wanted in a market with alternatives. The only anti-consumer position here is that those people should not be allowed to have that, anymore.