You are absolutely right. The manufacturer and the law has no say on the usage of a device I own. And still I cannot expect them to support a way of usage that was never intended. So Apple shouldn't be (and isn't) able to sue jailbreakers, but they don't have to make it easy for them.

Apple’s security theater is the pillar of their anticompetitive behaviors. The only users it helps are noobs who will just install whatever. If some serious actor wants your data, the theater doesn’t deter them, as evidenced by this Pegasus. If China wants your data, Apple will hand it over themselves.

It’s all a “think of the children” race-to-the-bottum where rent-seekers abuse fear and sycophanty to monopolize critical infrastructure.

Targeted attacks from nation states aren't in the average person's threat model, though it's definitely one Apple tries (and fails) to tackle.

But Apple's security measures definitely help against virtually anything else. Over-zealous police and border patrol. Script kiddies. General spyware and malware.

I think you're forgetting how bad mobile security was before both Apple and Google started adding these hardening measures to their flagship devices. You really couldn't trust your phone at all. Now, you somewhat can.

You're free to tinker with an iPhone however you want, it just might require you to be smart enough to work around the built-in security measures.

You're free to tinker with your John Deere equipment however you want, it just might require you to be smart enough to work around the built-in security measures.

I mean, yes? The OS not being locked down is a feature, like the ring tone being changeable. If you want that feature, buy a phone/tractor with that feature.

I’m not disputing the right to do whatever you want with your phone.

My comment was specifically targeting the fact that jail breaking somehow encourages people to develop means of circumventing the security of devices. This is when this becomes dangerous - suddenly it has the potential to hurt unsuspecting users. Saying that the responsibility is with Apple (or Google) to make this possible feels like a straw man argument - their job is to earn money (no illusions there) and keep users safe, even if it means making it harder to tinker (which also helps them earn money)

That's why we need changes to the law.

>The manufacturer has no say on the usage, simple as that.

Where does this end? Should all devices that have computers attached be capable of being 'rooted'?

You would not have the expectation if for example you purchased an MRI machine, that it should be able to emulate a Game Boy. A phone is also a special purpose computer; and the phone's software is designed to guarantee that those special purposes always work.

In my opinion this is the main thing that this root crowd does not understand; the iPhone is not a general purpose computing device. You should not have bought one if that's what you wanted. The market is full of general purpose computers that can make phone calls.

Arbitrary separating the hardware from the OS is not the same thing as the manufacturer having a say on usage. Like I am free to use my car how I want, but that I may not be able to easily repair it or swap parts like the seats or the engine is another problem.