Lawsuit for what? Not providing an API for a feature you want?

It's not like Apple specifically advertised background services, then lied about it.

The device is specifically built like that, and you can buy a different phone if it's that big of an issue.

It feels like complaining your toaster doesn't have a dark enough toast setting that you want. Is there a lawsuit in that?

> you can buy a different phone if it's that big of an issue.

- I can't change my car's satnav. You can buy another car if it's that big a deal.

I think we can agree, the above statement reads silly.

Sometimes, no matter the deal size - buying a new thing isn't always a reasonable option.

Full agreement the above sounds silly. So really it comes down to line between the responsibility of the consumer, and the duty of the product creator to say what the product can or can not do.

If you really care about replacing parts in your car like the satnav, should you need to do research before buying instead of assuming it works that way?

Or should we have rules that all sat navs need to be replaceable so consumers don't need to do that?

I honestly can't draw the line myself, I just try my best to identify what I want in a product before purchasing. Especially huge purchases like a car.

There are cars where you can change the built-in sat nav?

Nearly all of them. Changing the media center is a well sypported third party customisation for most vehicles.

Yup, almost every single car has this ability, sat nav or not.

For engaging in anti-competitive behavior. Forcing a single App Store on an os is much less draconian than offering a broken interface to basic OS functionality in order to prop your own product above others. Imagine if Windows downclocked whenever you wanted to use an office alternative. This is not much different.

Because you can buy an android device?

Be the change you want to see in the world.