Selling computer software is perfectly legit. Charging people who refuse to pay for it with theft is perfectly legit, as long as the legal sale and use works. But if they refuse to sell it to you at all (because, for example, they sell it only through an app you cannot run), or make it not work for you (because you run a different OS or computer architecture they won't support), then you should have the right to use a free version in the former case, or a cracked version in the latter case (though arguably you should pay them the price if you can, and just use the cracked version).

And this is why to use Android instead iPhone or others. Apps just wanna be free (as in speech).

So you chose to buy a tethered app?

... except where it doesn't.

Oh, and lets get precise. They did NOT remove a "service". They removed a software offering.

What law does this and web browsers and FTP clients and your computer's TCP/IP stack break?

I am taking NOTHING from you if I download, from a pirate site or other sharing mechanism, some media you are publishing, IF you have made it so I cannot download it legitimately. Likewise if you have made it so that I cannot use it when downloaded legitimately, I am taking NOTHING from you if I crack it.

I have NOT deprived you of any property by making a COPY. I have NOT deprived you of any revenue if you already made it so I cannot pay you for a working copy.

There are markets. If you do not want to sell a working copy to some particular segments of the market, then you are clearly not expecting any revenue from that segment of the market. If I am in that segment, then do not whine about what I do. If you want my revenue, make sure I can get it legally and that it works for me on MY computer. If you find it cost prohibitive to support some tiny segment of the market, then that is your decision to exclude them and let them figure it out.

I would include abusive DRM in this, and for all media. For example, if the DRM breaks the ability for me to read the book, play the music, view the movie, or run the software, on MY computer, but a pirated version exists, then I have no other choice. And I think this is justified because whoever intentionally added that DRM that blocks me out is already NOT expecting any revenue from ME. That may not justify the pirate making it available to everyone, but it does justify me downloading the pirated version. Publishers making their media or software available so that it worked EVERYWHERE and for EVERYONE at a reasonable price are the only ones that have justification to complain about people downloading a pirated copy. FYI, my computer runs Linux.

Compliance with family and friends that expect you to have one because "everyone" does. Now maybe YOU don't have the kinds of family and friends that expect that. Most people do these days.

I claim BS on your argument. If I get my email from AT&T, yes, I'd call them if it fails. If I get my email from elsewhere, I'd call that party. I get my email from a combination of 2 servers I administer, Gmail, and GMX. I don't need to data plan on my phone if I'm not using the carrier for that.

The correct response should be: "We did not sell that phone to you, so we are not able to support it other than enabling services and making sure those services work". Requiring them to pay for an unwanted service for device support is all wrong, and arguably illegal. If the data plan cost supports the device, then what payment supports the data plan? If they want wifi support, ask them where they are getting wifi service from. Once that is answered, tell them to ask that party for wifi support.

FYI, I never ask my carrier provider for support other than that related to my service. So explain why *I* have to pay for a data plan (if I used AT&T) without talking about what other people use. Maybe there should be a separate support plan to sell to those other people.

One way to do this is have a pre-boot manager that has its own PROM and flash, and when an OS boots, it sets a hardware flag that makes it own PROM and flash unwritable (or even unaddressable) until the whole hardware is reset (which always runs that PROM). An alternative is to have a separate small CPU with that PROM and flash, to run the controller and thus is fully isolated from the main CPU. In this alternative, the small control processor could still be running even when the OS is running on the main CPU. I think some enterprise servers already have this. Mainframes do. Things the controller could do (if implemented to do this) is stopping the main CPU, erasing or loading its RAM, managing (remapping) its devices, and starting the main CPU. The OS in the main CPU cannot access the control CPU at all. With additional features, this could also be used for cloud services management.

And so ... UEFI and Microsoft must die!

I can do panoramas w/o Flash. OK, so I use Javascript.

And you are sure it can't be alcohol?