Nobody's forcing anyone to buy a Kindle. The DRM and this ability they're retaining is one of the big reasons I don't have one yet (though I have to admit, I'm probably not going to hold out much longer).
Yes, that's closer. But closer yet would be that we're developing a new kind of housing, which cannot be bought without signing a contract that says the selling company gets a copy of your key. The problem is when this kind of thing gets on the accepted list of "standard business practices", and then people stop noticing that it's a bad idea.
> And then they apologized, and you didn't take your key back.
True, but keep in mind that, to do that, I would have to return the house.
I agree that Amazon has not broken their word on anything. They do not seem to have broken any laws. What they can and cannot do is part of the deal.
However, it is a bad deal. I am not treating Amazon like a company that is not doing what they said they'll do. Rather I am treating them like a company that sells a seriously inferior product. Because the contract is part of that product, and the contract is not good.
I dunno, it is a computer system. As far as I know, it's not jailbroken yet, but there are folks working on it: http://igorsk.blogspot.com/search/label/kindle
Has Amazon taken any steps to remove the feature of the Kindle software that let them do this in the first place? I don't think so. Thus, I am rather disinclined to "give them a break".
To use an analogy: a criminal obtains the key to my house. One night he sneaks in and steals some stuff. I'm upset, of course. But then he apologizes, returns the stuff, and even gives me a few gifts. However, he keeps my house key. Am I happy? (BTW, yes, I know that what Amazon did is not illegal. But it is certainly lousy enough to keep me from ever buying a Kindle.)
Unless someone wants to explain to me why being able to muck about with a customer's computer, behind the customer's back, is a Good Thing (?).