This is misleading though. There is simply no other choice if you want to use mainstream apps. It could be argued (successfully in my view) that any agreement is null and void due to its acceptance under duress.
Users have an inherent legal right to unconditionally access the full advertised functionality of devices they purchase. Any agreement after that is inherently suspect and I wouldn't be surprised to find out it was ruled unconscionable by some court if it came to that.
This isn't misleading in any way. It's unfortunate and we should be pissed about it, but this is exactly the legal arrangement that Google and Apple came up with.
> I wouldn't be surprised to find out it was ruled unconscionable by some court
Last US court battle, Apple told the court it needed the money from the kids casino to keep its profits, and the court just nodded.
Apple had to be held in comptempt of a court order after 4 years and a deluge of evidence, for us to see any significant move.
Too many people are in denial about what they actually own, and seem to refuse to accept this battle isn't starting or coming up, we're already in the process of losing it.
Clinging to material ownership feels great on the moment, but that's absolutely not what we need to deal with right now. It's kinda like being so proud to be the registered owner of your car, while it's getting impounded and you'll be spending the next 10 years trying to get it back.
Which is an unacceptable loophole in our legal system that should be closed immediately as far as I'm concerned. If I buy a product, even if that product is software, then I own it, and I should have ultimate control my copy of it.
The idea that we allow companies to go "Yes, you paid for this product, but it's not really yours. We still control it and can do whatever we want with it regardless of what you want." is asinine.
