If you’re talking about manufacturers making their devices more difficult to repair or voiding warranties based on minor modifications, that doesn’t mean you can’t do what you want with the item. It just means you can’t force the company to fix or replace it free of charge when you do.
I would call iCloud locking an embodiment of this. It's probably an unpopular example because people seem to broadly like it, but it does demonstrate the principal that the seller retains full control of the hardware and can "repossess" the device. The original purchaser does not receive a master unlock code.
Even if locking yourself out of your device is "your fault", it doesn't alter the fact that at that point only Apple retains control of the device.
Same with bios locks and management engines on PCs.
The idea that possession = ownership is gone. And we're almost all ok with that especially since it makes us a little safer and more "secure". At least until we can't trust Apple, Intel, etc. anymore.
One could argue that the black market value for your locked phone compared to unlocked phone is a proxy for how much you actually own the phone.
Activation locks were required by law to deter armed theft.
> A new report from Reuters found that iPhone theft dropped by 50 percent in London, 40 percent in San Francisco and 25 percent in New York. The drops represent theft activity as measured during the 12 months following Apple’s introduction of the remote locking feature in September 2013 as part of iOS 7.
With iOS 8, Apple made its so-called said “kill switch” active by default, in accordance with California regulation, and that should help the rates of theft continue to trend downwards.
https://techcrunch.com/2015/02/11/apples-activation-lock-lea...
Balancing these goals is not easy, but we don't get to avoid it just because we want "freedom" as an abstraction. It's an important consideration but only one when you put a lot of people with conflicting goals together.
Laws take freedom (as in do whatever you want) from people and give it to other people so the total expected gains are bigger than without the law, pretending that dishonest lawmakers don’t exist (false obviously). Also, all laws are bets on their outcomes and sometimes they go south.
Universal safety and security is pushed almost ubiquitously. Like it's a holy truth. Trumping all other concerns. And anybody who argues for anything else is just selfish or whatever.
The reason why it remains property of the brewery, is so that they can re-use it when you recycle it. It might be something that's specific for my country, though.
This just isn’t true. You don’t have to give Apple another dime to use an iPhone perpetually. Any paid Apple subscriptions are optional for cloud or streaming services.
[0] https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iOS16_iPadOS16.pdf (the iOS ToS)
(And I think it's noteworthy how that ToS' language bounces freely between "hardware" and "software"; how it fluctuates between "software license agreement" and "by using your iPhone ("device"), you are agreeing to...". Apple hardware and software are fused together: there is no practical difference).
Google just decreed that, starting 2 days ago, nobody may distribute software for my phone...