Comment by ineedaj0b
2 years ago
I don’t think this analogy works because you could have bought the competing chair - which proponents of loudly claim is better than the Apple chair - and gotten similar service. As a matter of fact I’m told the competing chair is much better, and not only that it’s cheaper! And I’m an idiot for buying the Apple chair
Buy the competing chair. This is not a monopoly.
If you get the chance to dictate how the user of the chair uses it (without to much blowback) it would make good business sense.
If you can prevent manufacturers from gaining control over unrelated parts of the customers life it would make good sense as a law maker.
Can someone make a portable computer with networking a camera, mic and nothing else? It seems entirely possible.
Then there is no need for the chair maker to want a percentage of all food revenue eaten in the chair, no need to demand specific food vendors or demand they use a specific payment system they also happen to own. No need to control who you can talk to, which games you play.
There just isn't a need to allow it.
Also, in the analogy your chair comes with regular visits to do maintenance, improvements and add new features to your chair.
Also whenever you sit in the chair, there are real monetary costs to the chair maker.