Device Ownership Debate

This is the opposite of freedom. People own their computers, its up to them how they are used, not some gatekeeping devs.

It's not ok period if the owner of the device can't choose to install software themselves.

Device belongs to you, but software belongs to the Apple. If you want your device to fully belong to you, you need to find a device supporting software which you can control. Otherwise you're at corporation mercy when it comes to privacy and other sensitive topics.

That's kinda the point - owners of devices should be in control of software their devices are running. Or they are not owners.

The "future of computing" is a device where you can't install your own software without the permission of a large undemocratic foreign company? Sounds horrible.

Shouldn't people be able to run whatever software they like on a device they've purchased?Anything less isn't full ownership.

Because they are making that decision for users. The devices are owned by users since the day of purchase.Why can’t users make that decision for themselves? Granted, many people choose to buy Apple devices because they do not desire general computing devices and instead desire appliances.But giving up that control erodes ownership itself. A device not fully controlled by you is not fully owned by you. You may own a license to use it for a limited time. But people do not buy hardware device

It attacks the users' freedom? Good! The owner of the computer should be in ultimate control, not the user. Buy your own computer if you don't like it.

Even "your" computer is not your own. It's effectively controlled by Intel, Microsoft, Apple etc. They just choose not to use that power (as far as we know). Ownership and control are not the same thing.

What if users don't want you taking control of their computer?