Though, I think that when someone deliberately chooses to buy a luxury good (much less one that costs a 4 figure sum) they lose some of their standing to complain. Kind of like how I don't complain about my beer because someone will yell at me that I just shouldn't buy the beer if I don't like it and he would be absolutely right.
The hell are you talking about GPDR being a resounding failure? It's been pretty awesome. I love bills like that.
It's a handheld computer. That's what it is. That's what it should be. And we should own our computers. And those computers should run whatever software we choose. And they should be able to network with every other computer on the planet. No bullshit restrictions.
I don't believe I should "lose some of my standing to complain" after buying any product whatsoever. Cheap, expensive, "luxury", you name it. I believe I should gain standing after paying for something. I believe should fully own the thing after buying it. Especially $1000+ "luxury" smartphones. I believe I should never end up being a serf in the corporation's digital fiefdom.
Does that seem like a misconstruction of the part of the argument that we originally started this string of comments on? I think there are other slightly better arguments against it but this one seems pretty flawed to me.
It seems reasonable to me that when a product hits some critical, hard-to-define adoption threshold, even if it is a “luxury” choice by your definition, there is still a good argument for placing consumer protections in place. It’s also reasonable to believe those actions would be nanny-state failings, stifle innovation, drive business away etc etc, but I do think the first point of view is reasonable.