Okay, so why do your preferences for the device take priority over the majority of users who don’t care about what the T2 does and the ones who do and actually want it? Why should it be illegal for a company to make a product for us instead of you?
Clearly the majority has won thus far and Apple is not restrained in any way. But I have the right to a differing political opinion, and when the majority shifts, your freedoms are not encroached, just like when the majority of people decide smoking should not be allowed in airplanes.
That’s a bizarre analogy to me, and you’re implying a symmetry to the situation that doesn’t exist. I want to be able to buy a product that has the properties that I want, and I want you to be able to buy a product with properties that you want (in part because I also want and own products with the properties you want). You want the only option to be products made with the properties you want, so that other businesses are forced to make more software for the products you want. Which of these is restricting freedom more?
I think you’re going to have to try harder to convince anyone that this situation is analogous to second hand smoke. You probably want to come up with better arguments for your “political” movement.
The condescendence is really unwarranted, it is a simple idea that purchasing options are affected by political choices of others. To give a symmetrical example, you are not allowed to purchase completely safe recreational drugs, because of the opinions the majority holds on their use.
The metric you use of avoiding "restricting freedom" is a strongly ideological stance in itself and is not a natural goal political systems strive for. You might value some flavors of individual autonomy and imply they have an universal vocation by calling them "freedom". I might favor other sets, such as the restriction of corporate power and consumer empowerment, and call those, in turn "freedom", see for example the GPL ethos. Both sets of political views are legitimate and can be pursued in a democracy.
Okay, but again, if your metric is consumer empowerment, how does you dictating the properties of products consumers can buy based on your personal preferences result in more consumer empowerment? Can most consumers take their System76 laptop, and then set it up so it has the properties of a laptop with something like the T2 chip if they so desire? Any more than you can reasonably be expected to delid the T2 chip in a MacBook to get it to do what you want?
I’m not trying to judge your statements by my goalposts as you seem to be implying, I’m trying to understand the internal logic of what you’ve been saying which AFAICT isn’t lining up.
This might be a confusion started from the answer of "amelius", the logic of which I don't fully support. I believe consumer freedom is hampered first and foremost by monopolies (or, in the mobile OS case, oligopolies) and my political choice is to maximize market forces and restrict anti-competitive behavior. This is the grounds on which I oppose Apple practices, not some idea that if people buy Apple products it somehow prevents development for other platforms.
Again, where is the monopoly that forces you to buy devices with a T2 chip (or something) analogous? That’s simply not the world we live in, and it doesn’t seem to me like we’re moving toward it. And if your political choice is to maximize market forces, why are you trying to fight the market forces that result in there being a large market for Apple’s devices and a small (but extant and healthy) market for the devices you want? Do you think that most consumers “really want” the devices you want? If so, why do they choose not to buy them even though they are available?
Right now, as a consumer (which, like you, is my only realistic lever on this situation), I’m pretty happy that I own some Apple devices and some very not-Apple devices. I’d be pretty pissed if I was forced to choose only one of these (in either direction). I think you’d find the same reaction if you became president of the world and threw everyone’s Apple devices in the trash and handed them a Librem 5 or something similar. Do you contest that this would be their reaction? If so, what is your definition of market forces and anti-competitive behavior?
Monopoly power is not a market force, it's an abuse of the market to the detriment of the consumers. If "the market forces that result in there being a large market for Apple’s devices" is Apple using its platform to, say, restrict competition and maximize app revenue, thus having more money to invest in their platform, thus forcing competitors to apply the same dubious tactics or fail, then this is not a pro-consumer model because it leads to an oligopoly at best or impenetrable monopoly at worst.
The consumers can buy any system with any chip they want. If it is employed by Apple to enhance security that's great, for example the Mac. If it's used to lockdown the device so that no competing software can be run, a la iPhone, for them to maintain the stranglehold on the app market, then I am against it on political grounds and my position is not falsifiable.
You are inworking an oligopoly situation and accuse me of wanting to turn it into a monopoly, but I want the exact opposite: all existing platforms to still exist, and additionally, all those prevented by anti-competitive behavior, which by my non-falsifiable definition includes any lockdown on the hardware that is sold in the marketplace, that can only be, and is only used to limit the options of the owner.
It is not like Apple devices would cease to be produced or be confiscated if we pass laws mandating software freedom on purchased hardware, from iPhones to tractors.
Doesn't that, by your own admission, mean that people care about X and not Y? If people don't care about Y, why should manufacturers be forced to appeal to the fraction of people that do?
