When they threaten to sue Youtubers who are educating people on how to repair their devices

When they lobby aka payoff governments to prevent right to repair laws

When they refuse to release tools and information that allow owners access to their hardware

When they refuse to acknowledge hardware design flaws or stand behind their products...

I could go on but the point is the idea that Facebook makes unethical decisions but Apple does not depends on what one considered ethical. Walled gardens to me are unethical so i do not buy products in walled gardens.

Like wise I do not accept having my data sold as a commodity so I never joined facebook. They likely have a shadow profile on me, which I do find unethical, but most people are complaining about them selling data they themselves gave to facebook in exchange for a free service, I do not find that to be unethical. People that created an account with Facebook, for free, should have suspected this.

This isn't comparable to something like not being able to repair my phone, requiring me to buy a new phone.

The solution to that is for people to stop storing that level of personal info in facebook. I can't believe people would share that kind of intimate information, enough that their life would be threatened (as you imply) simply because someone gained access to their facebook profile.

Me not having access to information on my device impacts me today, in reality. Your statement is a far fetched unrealistic projection of a dystopian world that I have no reason to entertain outside of fictional novel

People don’t have to specifically share the information with Facebook. You can infer a lot about people based on thier friends graph, thier likes, and FB tracks you across the web. You can tell which income percentile people most likely fall in just by the movies they said they liked (https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/08/02/635129556/grey...).

and when it comes to ethics, same argument can be made for apple with regarda to users controlling their hardware. (if) you are informed about the limitations of said hardware and general terms under which you bought it, then they have every right to protect their business model. it makes no sense to me to force a company to change the foundation of their business, and i dont wanna hear about “minor cutting” into their profits, the ROI is not something that should be adjusted by a 3rd party after consenting entities made a contract, and one side decides that it no longer wishes to honor it.

im not in favor of forbidding the things you listed, apple is not without sin, and they wouldnt suffer much with the legislation being changed, but i believe that the scale and trade off of the consequences should not be a factor in deciding whether we stick to a principal of honoring legally binding contracts, even if it’s EULA that might seem unfair. those issues mustn’t be adressed post factum and uncoerced consumers should not be coddled.

I do not believe a business has a "right to protect their business model" and while i do not believe they should be forced to sell me parts or provide me with detailed technical manuals, they should also not be allowed to prevent 3rd parties from filling that market, or put in technical blocks with the sole intention of preventing repairs

Things like Locking the screen and sysem board to each other in firmware preventing people from changing and repairing said devices also IMO crosses that line for me, this is currently being done on the newer iphones.

It is not simply about ownership either it is a massive ecological concern. Apples ewaste program like all other electronics manufactures is laughable at best.

On the topics of contracts and EULA's contract law is fascinating topic, one of the reason EULA's are considered by some to be unenforceable in any real measure is most of them as written would not be classified as an enforceable contract. Contracts have keys things that many EULA's lack, further it is not uncommon for entirely one sided contracts in other area's to be considered by the courts to be unenforceable as well. This is why you see many employment agreements fail if their enforcement actually goes to a court.

So no my statements do not in any way undermine our current foundation of honoring contracts, we already have mechanisms in place to render unfair, one sided contracts like abusive EULA's void in the courts as it is.

But their main business model, as far as I can tell, is making money by selling premium hardware.

Facebook et al. make money by collecting and selling other people's data.

Apple makes money by holding your data hostage to convince you to buy expensive hardware.

That said, Apple's business model doesn't require them to violate your privacy -- to derive value, they only need to hold the data you give them, not really do anything with it. Facebook's and Google's business model is only possible with a complete disregard for your privacy rights.

That's a good point! Although Google is commendably venturing out into all kinds of other areas.

Facebook, however, doesn't seem to be doing much other than just hawking data.

Data that Apple have on you includes but is not limited to:

- what time, location and what internet connection you use to do any of the following on an apple device: — open an app, and what app you opened — take a photo — look at your photo gallery — watch a video — basically do almost anything - also your iCloud files are all viewable by their engineers

Most of their staff only have access to anonymized versions of all of that data that engineers in particular use to find bugs and optimize UI’s, but thousands of their staff can view your raw data.

That’s not to say you should be worried. But you should be aware.

That’s when I decided to never buy an iDevice again.

This isn't lock-in, this is helping you by allowing you to take more photos.

Apple can’t influence any country’s elections. Facebook can, and has. Even the most “powerful” country’s.