[fitkoh]

This is an interesting take on Apple and I do see what you are saying. I think how they get around some of these anti-trust laws, Google included, is using companies like FedEx, UPS and so on for their distribution networks and fulfillment. So that breaks up the trust in that regard, but we are also seeing these companies get hit with how their app stores are ran. I am curious to see how things will continue to evolve during the course of this next year.

This is true; there are some options for companies today to utilize different outlets for various business requirements such as sourcing, marketing, etc. The fundamental flaw I see with Apple's policy of not permitting other companies to work on their devices is it is purely monopolistic. It's a bold and brash attempt to control a market, rather than encourage free trade and competition.

In my opinion, it isn't fair and shouldn't be legal. How can you sell a product and still dictate how it is used and who it is serviced by? Once sold, it's no longer Apple property - it's belongs to the purchaser. Beyond that point, Apple has no right to influence how the device is used. Imagine if you couldn't use the mechanic you trusted to fix your car: your ford had to be taken to a ford dealer, your chevy to a chevy, and your honda to a honda. That's a monopoly. Apple is doing the same thing. What if ford could blow your engine because you took it to  a mechanic you know and trust instead of to a dealership?

The warranty is a separate issue: I can get behind the practice of Apple voiding a warranty if a device is serviced by a non qualified technician. That seems fair and logical. After all, how can you know what's been done to the device if you weren't the one doing it? But when tech companies do things like bricking a phone that's been serviced by someone else, that seems to me like hacking. They're purposely and intentionally ruining a device which is no longer their property - and they should have to pay the consequences, like Apple had to do in Australia in 2015. (fortune.com)

If they choose not to update the phone, I can say that's fair. Once the device is sold, unless Apple is under a subscription to keep the device updated, they shouldn't have any requirement to update any device, whether it's been repaired or otherwise - although if they want to keep selling their products it'd be a good business practice.

In my opinion, a quality product with poor service is less valuable than a poor product with great service; I think many of the large companies will learn this the hard way over the coming years. People are often attracted to something new and different, especially with the good marketting that Apple employs; but sometimes it's better to take a loss and keep your clients happy than make gobs of money and lose your customer base - unless you're on the edge of selling/retiring (which maybe they are)? People tend to vote with their wallets, and people will realize sooner or later that supporting tyranny doesn't pay off in the long run, once the appeal has worn off.