I’m still on the fence about whether that justifies their protocols. I think I actually lean toward “no”, but I’ve also lately become keenly aware of the difficulty of even simple things like keeping everything up to date, and my lack of real insight into what those updates include. If I’m effectively trusting them anyway, might as well trust them to get it to me ASAP, right?
I’m also enough of a realist to assume there’s a Fight Club style “A times B times C > X” reputational/financial risk logic going on here. If there’s few enough of the devices out there, it’s probably cheaper to apologize (legally, as in settle).
They create products, which they offer for sale. People can freely choose to purchase those products or not.
Apple has opinions about how to make products, which are embodied in the products they offer for sale. Other companies have different opinions. This is how a market is supposed to work.
I don’t think we should talk about Apple as if they are a government taking away freedoms. It confers too much authority upon Apple and too much victimhood upon customers.
We shouldn't be talking about Apple like a government, but the government should probably be regulating this a bit better;
They patently did contribute to the erosion of freedoms that people fundamentally used to have with their hardware.
Looking at recent Samsung devices, is Google Services Framework really that integral to the security of my device that I must be forbidden from disabling that package? Isn't there an alternative way to achieve a comparable level of security, but without slurping up my personal data?
The consequence of security does not have to be a complete loss of control, nor the inability to prevent in a practical way the collection of our personal data.
Not to mention the whole security argument falls apart when perfectly fine Android devices are left without security updates 2-3 years after purchase.