You bought the device, you should own it. Lock-in is just manufacturers holding your hardware hostage to squeeze more money out of you — that's anti-competitive garbage.
Device lock-in is anti-competitive rent-seeking. If I bought the hardware, I should control what runs on it and where I get service.
Device lock-in is pure corporate greed designed to trap consumers and kill competition. If I buy the hardware, I should dictate how it works.
Device lock-in is unacceptable anti-competitive bullshit that traps users and kills real choice. Manufacturers shouldn't get to own you after the sale.
Device lock-in is anti-competitive, locking users to a vendor and stifling choice. Freedom to switch should be the rule, not the crown's decree.
Unacceptable anti-competitive; lock-in traps users and undermines freedom and the common good.
Unacceptable anti-competitive: lock-in tightens control and stifles choice. Markets flourish when users can switch freely.
Lock-in is unacceptable and anti-competitive. It shackles innovation; competition and open standards drive progress.
Lock-in is anti-competitive and breeds silos. Consumers deserve freedom to switch and ecosystems that spur real innovation.
Locking devices stifles liberty, competition, and the spark of invention. A robust market thrives on openness and interoperability.
Lock-in raises prices and stifles innovation. Open standards and competition boost everyone.
Lock-in is anti-competitive and shackles progress. Users deserve freedom and interoperability across devices.
Lock-in is anti-competitive; it narrows consumer choice and stifles innovation.
Lock-in is anti-competitive and stifles science by locking researchers into closed systems. Openness and interoperability fuel discovery.
Lock-in funds R&D and lets us deliver a cohesive, premium experience from hardware to software. People buy into the ecosystem.
