You can't make a contract that is contrary to law. Just because the contract says "if you tamper with it, it will void the warranty". The law specifically says that it's legal to repair/tamper and it won't void the warranty.

Let me provide another, more extreme example: You buy a car seat for your new born child. The car seat is wrapped in plastic with a sticker that says by opening the package you agree to the terms and conditions in the enclosed booklet. Inside that booklet it says that the car seat doesn't meet all of the current safety requirements, you agree that you're aware of this, and that you agree to not hold the company liable for any deaths/injuries in conjunction with using the car seat. 3 months later, you get in a minor accident, but because the car seat was defective the restrains broke your child was injured with life-long brain damage. You now have life-long medical expenses to care for your child.

The company can pull out the shrink wrap agreement, but that would quickly get thrown out as the regulations in place at the time the car seat was sold clearly required specific safety features be included in all car seats. In fact, the agreement in the box specifically states that your company KNEW that the car seats didn't comply. Now your company is responsible for negligence which will triple the damages.

Basically, if the law says that in order to do business you must do X, then you can't create a contract that says "you agree that we won't do X". If the law says that if you have a warranty, then you must allow people to use 3rd party repair shops and that those won't void the warranty, then you can't create a contract that says otherwise.

Contracts that are contrary to law aren't valid. This isn't legal advise, i'm not a lawyer, etc. etc.

All states (except Louisiana) have merchant-ability laws that override any in store policies. These state laws vary on the state, but the basics of each one are mostly the same: If a product is sold as being able to do X, then it must do X. If it doesn't do X, then the buyer is entitled to return the product, regardless of what the return policies are.

For example, let's say there is a store selling sheets. Their return policy says "no returns on sheets once they are used", which is pretty typical. Through the course of business, they say that if a set of sheets has been washed, then they are used (also typical). I buy a pair of king-sized sheets. I then take them out of the package and immediately launder them, as you are supposed to do. When I take them out, I find out they don't fit my bed and that they were queen-sized sheets sold in king-sized packaging. Despite the policies saying that there are no returns on sheets once they are used and that sheets are considered to be used if they have been washed, I would be legally entitled to return the sheets for a full refund regardless of what the store's policies are.

The exception to the above is when items are sold "as is". "As is" is very different than "All sales final". It also, required specific language be used to designate a sale of "as is" product. There are a handful of states that don't even allow for the merchantability exception for as-is sales either.

Before you talk about things you know nothing about, I suggest giving Apple's iOS Security Guide a proper reading and understanding: https://www.apple.com/business...

Not only are fully alpha numeric pass codes fully supported, Apple has taken steps to mitigate the "we've been forced to sign firmware" attack vector as well:

RTFA. The point of the article is that you can't do exactly what you suggest people do. Per the article:

So unless you buy the enterprise edition of Windows (Cost: $84 per PC, per year, minimum 5 licenses), or are attending a university that will enable you to obtain the Education edition on windows (Cost: averages about $9,970 per year) you can't even do what you suggest. Windows explicitly ignores the settings that turns this functionality off.

Pop-up ads in the traditional sense, where a new browser window "popped up" or opened in a new window, have been typically blocked in Chrome for a LONG time.

What is new to being blocked are exactly what you describe, in-window "pop up" ads that use absolute divs and covering the content...Often times with a hard-to-find "X" or other similar close option in a non-stard location or only appearing/enabled after a delay has passed.

Not necessarily:

The DMCA says:

The data on the phone itself are copyrighted by the individual who created it. If I took any photo, typed up any e-mail, etc. it's considered a copyrighted work the instant it's created. You, as the individual, could claim that they violated the DMCA by breaking your effective technological method for preventing the distribution of your copyrighted work.

There is the law enforcement exemption from the DMCA, but that seems to apply to law enforcement officers and government employees.

Have you actually read the terms of service that you agree to when you sign up for an e-mail account from Microsoft? Obviously not. Because if you did, you'd see that you agreed to let them look at pretty much anything that is sent/received/stored on any Microsoft service for the purposes of detecting and reporting: anything illegal, activity that exploits/harms/threatens to harm children, spam, anything that they (in their sole an infinite wisdom) determine to be inappropriate, engage in fraud, accessing Microsoft's or anyone else's services illegally, copyright infringement, and transmitting malware.

First off: Microsoft is not the government. They can search their own property (their servers) at any time for any reason. 4th amendment does not apply
Second: Even if Microsoft was the government (*shudder*), you gave consent for them to search your communications when you signed up. If the police show up at your house and ask "can we search your house?", if you say yes, then anything they find can be used against you...warrant or not.
Third: The indemnification you talk about only applies to copyright. Any other illegal activities that are perpetuated through their services they can be liable for if they are complacent in them happening on their services.

If you don't like Microsoft searching your e-mails for possible illegal content, don't use Microsoft's e-mail services. That is literally your only recourse. I agree with you in that i'd prefer that no one but me reads my e-mails. This is one of the many reasons why I run my own e-mail server. But Microsoft is within their rights to search your e-mails.

You still needed the USB->lightening cable that came with your phone to charge the phone using the normal USB port. It's the same cable, just with USB-C instead of plain USB.

No. You already did that with the TOS you agreed to when you bought the thing in the first place.

As an owner of an iPhone 7 I can say that the claim that the adapter being output only is purely false. I have used the adapter with my existing headphones that have the mic, volume, and track controls without any problems.

how is it greed? The wired headphones are still included in the box. They include the adapter for normal headphones that you already own or wish to purchase in the future. They sell the adapter, should you lose it or want more than one, for $9.

The earpods are basically just fancy bluetooth headphones. Which you can also still connect to the phone.

actually, they include the dongle with the phone. If you lose it, or want more than one, they are $9.

Don't worry. Microsoft made this much easier by taking away the ability to pick and choose the updates you can install. Not only are updates now mandatory and WILL be installed, all updates to Windows are now rolled up together as one cumulative update. So while you can disable network access and other router tricks to stop windows update from installing updates, updates are STILL an all-or-nothing approach as starting as of this most recent rounds of updates, all updates are issued as roll ups that include all updates from the most recent round of updates and ALL previous updates that were issued.

Now if one of their minor updates is breaking the connection to your kindle, your only choice is to remove ALL updates that were installed the last time and not install any new updates until Microsoft fixes their shit.

Any drivers that were already installed at the time of the update got grandfathered in and would still run under the Anniversary update. You just can't install new drivers that are unsigned or install a new device with unsigned drivers.

Is it a Kindle Paperwhite or Voyage? Or a different model of Kindle? The summary explicitly calls out the Paperwhite and Voyage models as the ones Windows is having problems with.