If I bought a car knowing that is how it worked, then of course I do.
Note: I agree that scenario isn’t desirable. However there is no slippery slope.
Note: I agree that scenario isn’t desirable. However there is no slippery slope.
This is what Tim Cook said about govt agencies wanting a backdoor - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZmeZyDGkQ0 - right around 4:25.
When I buy an Apple product, this is part of what I think Apple does to protect their customers' privacy - No matter what, not even if the govt says so.
Now suddenly, we're back to talking about whether we can trust Apple after they expressly told us not to trust ANYONE including Apple and why that was such a good thing.
We're discussing the implications of it. You're welcome to not if you think it's irrelevant.
And yeah, when people lost access to their zune music, or their steam stuff, they did get upset.
Mind you, I would not outlaw the transaction. But calling it a "sale" is false advertising in my book.
How is that not ‘buying’?
Except run software when the server gets a little smokey.
The problem is that they (have the ability to) continue to make those decisions afterwards. You could have "known" an iPhone could run Fortnite at the moment you bought it and then after you received it in the mail discovered that they had decided you were no longer allowed to do that.
You could then say "well I bought it knowing they had the ability to change anything at any time" but I'm not sure I agree that you can give informed consent to a blank check.
Epic knew it, and the chose to breach the terms of service on purpose to cause this effect. Epic intentionally triggered a contract term that they knew would result in their software being removed from their customer’s devices.
They were given an opportunity by both Apple and the court to restore their software to compliance and still get to continue the lawsuit.
This is 100% Epic’s responsibility.
They could have sued Apple without deliberately breaching the contract, but they chose to make their customers into pawns in their legal strategy.
You effectively need to know what every company in the world is doing to have any real idea what your device is going to be able to do tomorrow. Under those conditions I don't think you can say you were informed when you purchased it.
But I disagree that people weren’t informed. It is common knowledge and widely advertised that Apple issues software updates, and it is widely known that Apple enforces its store rules.
The information about what changes could be made and by whom was readily available to purchasers.