Isn't this equivalent to, say, Wal-Mart deciding not to stock your widgets anymore because they're going to manufacture a competing widget? It sucks, sure, but it also seems like it's within their rights to do so.
Is Apple in the clear or are they running afoul of the law somewhere?
First they use morality.. and kick out some tech, just because they dont like them.. than they use all sorts of games to tell who are in and who are out.. but hey! the phone is in your pocket.. you should decide, not them
Its a company or its your priest? They are deciding your life for you... wake up.
Really, i dont want to have anything to do with apple, im a free spirit and i know better whats good for me, they just need to get out of our way.. but the state are also corrupted by the big companies.. they do nothing to stop that..because you know, politics and power is a expensive game to play.. and here comes the Big Brother.. and people just love them..
I guess I don't really get what consumer pressure is going to do, realistically speaking. The number of Bitcoin users (the users most likely to participate in this) is very small relative to the number of Apple users.
If you're interested, I'd be willing to make a $100 bet to the charity of the winner's choice that Apple will not reinstate Coinpunk anytime in the next three months.
There were civil rights before corporations even existed, so conciencious legislators, would see this as a matter of property..
If apple opens a centralized app store, (its in their right to do so) and create whatever criteria they want to allow or ban apps in their store, its also in their right to do so..
But there two things conscious legislators should propose:
* They must create a explicit written rule for what they ban and what they allow and stick with it .. this will also serve for apps that were banned without a proper reason to go to the court and make Apple put it back there (because it was not explicit in their rule, so they could not have kick them out)
* They must allow other app stores to offer apps, with their own rules.. they cannot force people that have already paid for their product to have only one store or source of applications they can go to.. cause this is, you know.. forced monopoly
If these two rules were granted as civil rights.. they couldnt hurt your freedom so bad.. but you now.. democracies are rotten all over the world.. they are not working anymore as they suppose to.. they are ill and weak.. monopolies are forming all over without no one to stand for our civil rights :/
Are you a lawyer?
A lawyer specialises in the law.
Libertarian response: yes, it's perfectly OK, so long as Apple did not use force or fraud to get me to buy their device and agree to their terms of service.
Next question?
Now, what if Apple has expressely forbid you to do so.. would you think its fair?
What im trying to elucidate here, is the issue with ownership and property.. if you want to piss in your device you should be allowed to do it.. its yours..
But control what you can use, play or watch inside of your device is ok for you? i dont understand your logic..
Ok, so you are a conscious guy that dont buy the thing because you dont like the policy in it.. but then you need a new TV from JoeTV.. oh wait.. in their terms of service they dont allow your kids to watch TV after 8 PM..
Point being: If one can do it (and are not regulated), everyone else can.. a conscious minority not buying their products wont be even missed..
This is selfish and wont stop the big guys from abusing their power to abuse us
The problem you're missing is that many purchases are governed by contracts which can and sometimes do have obligations for the purchaser after the moment of purchase. Additionally, you only have the ability to operate certain software pursuant to the terms of a license agreement, which is yet another contract.
Do you feel you should have the right to breach contracts when you feel like it?
Now, I can potentially lose money due to this policy. So, I agree it is legally ok, but not morally ok.