In article <sv8ds2$ukv$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> *Given Apple can (and does) lock you out - will Microsoft do it too?*

they don't nor can microsoft, trollboi
>
> I am extremely well educated,

photos of books means nothing, and your posts demonstrates a *lack* of
knowledge.

> and as a result, I provided _proof_ of
> everything that I claimed,

no you didn't

> and, the question is perfectly valid indeed.

it is not

On Feb 22, 2022, Jacob Jones wrote
(in article<news:op.1h0w0plqdsjozi@pvr2.lan>):

> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 07:35:46 +1100, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>
>> Am 22.02.22 um 18:05 schrieb nospam:
>>> In article <sv2o06$vp2$1@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> How stupid are people to activate GPS when they do not need it?
>>>
>>> if an app requests location with a precision that needs gps, then the
>>> gps is activated to obtain it (assuming the user granted permission for
>>> location services). if less precision is needed, other methods will be
>>> used.
>>
>> That is not an answer to what I said.
>> If GPS is turned off, snooping is simply impossible.
>
>> Reasonable users turn off location services if they are not needed
>> specifically.
>
> Bullshit with an iphone because I know who is using the
> GPS service and I dont care who knows where I am.
>
> If I am going to murder or assault someone, I will leave the iphone at
> home.

Apple knows where you live.

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

On Feb 22, 2022, Jacob Jones wrote
(in article<news:op.1h0wvnatdsjozi@pvr2.lan>):

> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 07:51:03 +1100, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>
>> Am 22.02.22 um 21:40 schrieb nospam:
>>> In article <sv3hf3$3ls$1@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> How stupid are people to activate GPS when they do not need it?
>>>>>
>>>>> if an app requests location with a precision that needs gps, then the
>>>>> gps is activated to obtain it (assuming the user granted permission
>>>>> for
>>>>> location services). if less precision is needed, other methods will be
>>>>> used.
>>>>
>>>> That is not an answer to what I said.
>>>
>>> yes it is.
>>>
>>>> If GPS is turned off, snooping is simply impossible.
>>>
>>> there is no on/off for the gps. if it's needed, it's used.
>>>
>>>> Reasonable users turn off location services if they are not needed
>>>> specifically.
>>>
>>> turning off location services can have undesirable effects, such as the
>>> app not working properly. for a navigation app or weather app, it's not
>>> an option.
>
>> Navigation is a specific use.
>
>> A weather app does not need location services.
>
> But it is convenient when on a trip to have it show you the local weather.
>
>> And neither do a lot of system services that think they need them.
>
> It is handy when say you want to check stuff like who has the best petrol
> prices etc.

Any good app will take a zip code or town name instead of your coordinates.

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 12:14:31 +1100, RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:

> On Feb 22, 2022, Jacob Jones wrote
> (in article<news:op.1h0w0plqdsjozi@pvr2.lan>):
>
>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 07:35:46 +1100, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 22.02.22 um 18:05 schrieb nospam:
>>>> In article <sv2o06$vp2$1@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz
>>>> <hugybear@gmx.ch>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How stupid are people to activate GPS when they do not need it?
>>>>
>>>> if an app requests location with a precision that needs gps, then the
>>>> gps is activated to obtain it (assuming the user granted permission
>>>> for
>>>> location services). if less precision is needed, other methods will be
>>>> used.
>>>
>>> That is not an answer to what I said.
>>> If GPS is turned off, snooping is simply impossible.
>>
>>> Reasonable users turn off location services if they are not needed
>>> specifically.
>>
>> Bullshit with an iphone because I know who is using the
>> GPS service and I don't care who knows where I am.
>>
>> If I am going to murder or assault someone, I will leave the iphone at
>> home.
>
> Apple knows where you live.

Not it doesn't if you don't want them to know that.

And I don't care if they do know where I live anyway.

On Feb 25, 2022, Jacob Jones wrote
(in article<news:op.1h6beobddsjozi@pvr2.lan>):

>>> If I am going to murder or assault someone, I will leave the iphone at
>>> home.
>>
>> Apple knows where you live.
>
> Not it doesn't if you don't want them to know that.
>
> And I don't care if they do know where I live anyway.

Do you shut off your iPhone about a half hour before you get home?
And do you only turn it back on about a half hour after leaving home?

If not, Apple knows where you live.
So does Google know where you live if you used Google Maps on your iPhone.

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 12:15:47 +1100, RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:

> On Feb 22, 2022, Jacob Jones wrote
> (in article<news:op.1h0wvnatdsjozi@pvr2.lan>):
>
>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 07:51:03 +1100, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 22.02.22 um 21:40 schrieb nospam:
>>>> In article <sv3hf3$3ls$1@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz
>>>> <hugybear@gmx.ch>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> How stupid are people to activate GPS when they do not need it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if an app requests location with a precision that needs gps, then
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> gps is activated to obtain it (assuming the user granted permission
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> location services). if less precision is needed, other methods will
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> used.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not an answer to what I said.
>>>>
>>>> yes it is.
>>>>
>>>>> If GPS is turned off, snooping is simply impossible.
>>>>
>>>> there is no on/off for the gps. if it's needed, it's used.
>>>>
>>>>> Reasonable users turn off location services if they are not needed
>>>>> specifically.
>>>>
>>>> turning off location services can have undesirable effects, such as
>>>> the
>>>> app not working properly. for a navigation app or weather app, it's
>>>> not
>>>> an option.
>>
>>> Navigation is a specific use.
>>
>>> A weather app does not need location services.
>>
>> But it is convenient when on a trip to have it show you the local
>> weather.
>>
>>> And neither do a lot of system services that think they need them.
>>
>> It is handy when say you want to check stuff like who has the best
>> petrol prices etc.
>
> Any good app will take a zip code

No zip code here.

> or town name

My town name is used in quite a few other places.
No point in me having to tell it which one is mine
when it can work out for itself where I am.

And no point in keeping track of town names when
on a trip when you need petrol, much more viable
to have the app show you which one close has the
best prices and navigate to there for you and tell
you if its currently open or not.

> instead of your coordinates.

I would have to look up my coordinates. Fuck that.

On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 12:25:04 +1100, RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:

> On Feb 25, 2022, Jacob Jones wrote
> (in article<news:op.1h6beobddsjozi@pvr2.lan>):
>
>>>> If I am going to murder or assault someone, I will leave the iphone at
>>>> home.
>>>
>>> Apple knows where you live.
>>
>> Not it doesn't if you don't want them to know that.
>>
>> And I don't care if they do know where I live anyway.

> Do you shut off your iPhone about a half hour before you get home?
> And do you only turn it back on about a half hour after leaving home?

> If not, Apple knows where you live.

No Apple doesn't, because it doesnt track you.

> So does Google know where you live ifyou used Google Maps on your iPhone.

Yes, and I don't care.

Jacob Jones <jkj33@gmail.com> wrote:

>> If not, Apple knows where you live.
>
> No Apple doesn't, because it doesnt track you.

Do you mebbie prefer the word "collect" instead of "track" perchance?

"Apple collects location information to improve user experience,
and deliver relevant content to you based on where you are
and what you are doing."

https://focus.mylio.com/tech-today/8-ways-apple-tracks-you-number-one-security-flaw

On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 03:01:59 +1100, Peter
<occassionally-confused@nospam.co.uk> wrote:

> Jacob Jones <jkj33@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> If not, Apple knows where you live.
>>
>> No Apple doesn't, because it doesnt track you.
>
> Do you mebbie prefer the word "collect" instead of "track" perchance?
>
> "Apple collects location information to improve user experience,
> and deliver relevant content to you based on where you are
> and what you are doing."

It doesn't collect your location. And the other collection is optional too.

And apple doesn't deliver any content relevant to my location either.

> https://focus.mylio.com/tech-today/8-ways-apple-tracks-you-number-one-security-flaw

Jacob Jones <jkj33@gmail.com> wrote:

>> "Apple collects location information to improve user experience,
>> and deliver relevant content to you based on where you are
>> and what you are doing."
>
> It doesn't collect your location.

What are you saying is different about "Apple collects location information"
and what you claim?

"Apple collects location information to improve user experience,
and deliver relevant content to you based on where you are
and what you are doing."

https://focus.mylio.com/tech-today/8-ways-apple-tracks-you-number-one-security-flaw

On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 10:06:25 +1100, Peter
<occassionally-confused@nospam.co.uk> wrote:

> Jacob Jones <jkj33@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> "Apple collects location information to improve user experience,
>>> and deliver relevant content to you based on where you are
>>> and what you are doing."
>>
>> It doesn't collect your location.
>
> What are you saying is different about "Apple collects location
> information"
> and what you claim?

Try that again in english, even google translate doesnt do gobbledook yet.

> "Apple collects location information to improve user experience,
> and deliver relevant content to you based on where you are
> and what you are doing."

> https://focus.mylio.com/tech-today/8-ways-apple-tracks-you-number-one-security-flaw

In practice apple does NOT collect the location of your house.

Jacob Jones <jkj33@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> It doesn't collect your location.
>>
>> What are you saying is different about "Apple collects location
>> information"
>> and what you claim?
>
> Try that again in english, even google translate doesnt do gobbledook yet.

It's English.
To you, that's gobbledook but to everyone else, it's just plain English.

Let's try again.

You said: "Apple does not collect your location"
Apple said: "Apple collects location information"

Add to that Apple already said location information is more than just
location as it's "location" plus "what you are doing" (as per Apple).

Knowing that, what do you think is the difference in your mind between
"location" (you) & the more complete "location information" (Apple)?

On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 14:54:09 +1100, Peter
<occassionally-confused@nospam.co.uk> wrote:

> Jacob Jones <jkj33@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> It doesn't collect your location.
>>>
>>> What are you saying is different about "Apple collects location
>>> information"
>>> and what you claim?
>>
>> Try that again in english, even google translate doesnt do gobbledook
>> yet.
>
> It's English.
> To you, that's gobbledook but to everyone else, it's just plain English.
>
> Let's try again.
>
> You said: "Apple does not collect your location"
> Apple said: "Apple collects location information"

That isn't the same as the location of your home, fuckwit.

> Add to that Apple already said location information is more than just
> location as it's "location" plus "what you are doing" (as per Apple).

Still isn't the same as the location of your home, fuckwit.

> Knowing that, what do you think is the difference in your mind between
> "location" (you) & the more complete "location information" (Apple)?

Neither are the location of your home, fuckwit.

rabidR04CH wrote:

>>> Because I haven't been convinced to drink the Kool-Aid and buy one. I'm
>>> tasked with fixing them when they inevitably fail for others and that
>>> experience is much of the reason why I don't want to buy one for
>>> myself... the price for what you get adds to that.
>>
>> there is no kool-aid.
>
> Not anymore: you drank it all.

That's an important concept to all on these newsgroups.
Below is a rather _adult_ observation of why I believe iKooks are what they
are, which is always a destabilizing influence on all newsgroups they
participate in.

I find it revealing that nospam, being a classic iKook, claims there is no
kool-aid, given he exhibits the classic symptoms of the Jim Jones' cultists.

a. All iKooks are uneducated and of low IQ and of low self esteem
b. Apple MARKETING (brilliantly) caters to those of low self esteem
c. Where the iKooks garner much of their self esteem from Apple promises

As a result of those factors, the iKooks believe in an imaginary belief
system that is almost completely devoid of any actual facts about Apple.

Hence, any fact about Apple iKooks don't like, they outright brazenly deny.
If they can't deny them, they go through a range of seven excuses.
The final step is they turn into kindergarten kids with ad hominems.

The question is _why_ are iKooks so afraid of facts about Apple products.
The answer turns out to be rather simple (if you know the traits above).
A. iKooks garner their self esteem from Apple products
B. Any fact that detracts from Apple esteem, detracts from theirs
C. Hence, they not only hate all facts about Apple, but all messengers

Normal people do not act that way.
Normal people have not drunk the Apple kool-aid that the iKooks drank.
--
My point isn't that iKooks are uneducated & of low IQ & low self esteem, but
_because_ of those things, they always deny all facts they hate about Apple.

On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 12:43:42 -0500, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>i know people who worked on the iigs and apple did not cripple it
>because of the mac. the entire concept is crazy. crippling it would
>have driven customers to competing products, the very opposite of what
>is being claimed. also, the mac was more expensive and aimed at a
>different demographic. the iigs wasn't a 'cheap mac'. it was a fancy
>apple ii.
>
>crippling the iigs makes for a good conspiracy theory, but it doesn't
>even pass the sniff test, as is often the case with conspiracy
>theories.

I remember the IIgs - I had a fairly early model II+ and had
considered getting one but then I was also considering an early Mac at
that point only to find that Apple had zero plans to sell a data
conversion kit to migrate Apple II users' data to Mac format at which
point I decided that if I had to trash my 200+ floppies (the ones I
most cared about either had jpgs or Appleworks data files and I knew
there was a Mac Appleworks) I sure as HELL wasn't going to give my
dollars to the company that had just forced me to.

And nearly 40 years later have NEVER spent a penny on an Apple product
for myself though bought a Mac laptop for my daughter who was entering
art school and much later an iPad for my wife (who used it primarily
for keeping in touch with the same daughter after she had emigrated to
England)

In article <p0q65hhe5s9c09lg1ef9bk8m89s3k5qh43@4ax.com>, The Horny Goat
<lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> I remember the IIgs - I had a fairly early model II+ and had
> considered getting one but then I was also considering an early Mac at
> that point only to find that Apple had zero plans to sell a data
> conversion kit to migrate Apple II users' data to Mac format at which
> point I decided that if I had to trash my 200+ floppies (the ones I
> most cared about either had jpgs or Appleworks data files and I knew
> there was a Mac Appleworks) I sure as HELL wasn't going to give my
> dollars to the company that had just forced me to.

there was no need to trash anything. all of your data could easily be
migrated, although early on, it did need third party utilities. there
was also at least one apple ii compatibility card, which came later.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 16:09:00 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <p0q65hhe5s9c09lg1ef9bk8m89s3k5qh43@4ax.com>, The Horny Goat
><lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>
>> I remember the IIgs - I had a fairly early model II+ and had
>> considered getting one but then I was also considering an early Mac at
>> that point only to find that Apple had zero plans to sell a data
>> conversion kit to migrate Apple II users' data to Mac format at which
>> point I decided that if I had to trash my 200+ floppies (the ones I
>> most cared about either had jpgs or Appleworks data files and I knew
>> there was a Mac Appleworks) I sure as HELL wasn't going to give my
>> dollars to the company that had just forced me to.
>
>there was no need to trash anything. all of your data could easily be
>migrated, although early on, it did need third party utilities. there
>was also at least one apple ii compatibility card, which came later.

I waited 3-4 years from Apple and didn't see anything; I kept my II
long past it's "best by" date - hey I even had an Apple II 1200 baud
internal modem! - and would have been an Apple customer for life had
they even provided an Appleworks Apple II => Appleworks Mac conversion
kit (even if it meant uploading all those floppies at 28.8k to a
server and downloading it all again) but have never bought Apple since
for my own use (as opposed to an iPad for my late wife which I have
now inherited but haven't learned yet and a Mac laptop for my then
just entering art school daughter) in the last 30 years.

They had me, they lost me. All their own doing.

PS. I only got rid of those floppies about 3-4 years ago :) (by then
my book collection database was 20 years out of date)

On 13/08/2022 12:57, The Horny Goat wrote:

> They had me, they lost me. All their own doing.

There are many cases on the net where Apple locked people out of their own
devices because Apple says they must log into the iCloud to keep them
alive.

In article <td8g8m$123fq$1@news.mixmin.net>, cris
<cris@removespam.me.com> wrote:

>
> There are many cases on the net where Apple locked people out of their own
> devices because Apple says they must log into the iCloud to keep them
> alive.

there are no such cases, nor is that true. logging into icloud is not
required to keep a device alive.

nospam wrote:

>> There are many cases on the net where Apple locked people out of their own
>> devices because Apple says they must log into the iCloud to keep them
>> alive.
>
> there are no such cases, nor is that true. logging into icloud is not
> required to keep a device alive.

These rather odd iKooks have only a singular goal on the OS newsgroups.
*Defend everything Apple to the death, no matter what*
(facts be damned)

FACTS:
<https://i.postimg.cc/hhFNJ5mq/appleid010.jpg> Apps become non functional
<https://i.postimg.cc/nrFHSvby/appleid11.jpg> Apple forces periodic login

Anyway, the question isn't whether Apple locks you out of your own hardware
if you don't periodically log into their mothership tracking server - but
if Apple can do it, why can't Microsoft do the same to you in Windows 11?

In article <td8rj9$i6$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> <https://i.postimg.cc/hhFNJ5mq/appleid010.jpg> Apps become non functional

that's to use imessage. obviously if you want to use imessage you will
need to sign in so you can send and receive messages.

the same applies to other messaging apps as well as any other app that
requires an account sign-in, such as email, banking, etc.

> <https://i.postimg.cc/nrFHSvby/appleid11.jpg> Apple forces periodic login

apple does not force anything. your screen shot is about an update.

updates are *optional*. you don't have to update.

you also like to brag that updates should be avoided, so why all of a
sudden are you now wanting to update?

nospam wrote:

>> <https://i.postimg.cc/hhFNJ5mq/appleid010.jpg> Apps become non functional
>
> that's to use imessage. obviously if you want to use imessage you will
> need to sign in so you can send and receive messages.

*Apple will unilaterally _disable_ your device* if you do NOT periodically
log into their Apple iCloud tracking server - so why can't Microsoft too?

<https://i.postimg.cc/ZR5mZ287/appleid07.jpg> Apple fails App Store test
<https://i.postimg.cc/TwN6P0QR/appleid08.jpg> Only Apple requires a login
<https://i.postimg.cc/8k3GQyj4/appleid09.jpg> Apple tracks your activity

> the same applies to other messaging apps as well as any other app that
> requires an account sign-in, such as email, banking, etc.

Bullshit. You're completely ignorant of how Android SMS/MMS works.
*There is ZERO sign-in required to use the default Android messenger app.*

>> <https://i.postimg.cc/nrFHSvby/appleid11.jpg> Apple forces periodic login
>
> apple does not force anything. your screen shot is about an update.

If you do NOT periodically sign into the Apple tracking server,
Apple will unilaterally _lock_ you out of your own device.

> updates are *optional*. you don't have to update.

It has _nothing_ to do with updates you ignorant Apple iKook.

You can update the iOS version without logging into Apple's trackers.
<https://i.postimg.cc/gj0r2cBP/osupdate01.jpg> iOS 13.5 to iOS 15.3.1
<https://i.postimg.cc/sfZ0XP71/osupdate02.jpg> Deleting Siri stuff works
<https://i.postimg.cc/nLjqk2HD/osupdate03.jpg> Even iOS updates work
<https://i.postimg.cc/bJPKDSZ1/osupdate04.jpg> Can't download an app twice
<https://i.postimg.cc/Gt39Q7Pp/osupdate05.jpg> iCloud TOC acceptance

> you also like to brag that updates should be avoided, so why all of a
> sudden are you now wanting to update?

What no longer shocks me isn't so much you know _nothing_ about Apple,
but that you always come up with kindergarten excuses for Apple flaws.

The fact remains Apple can (and does) lock you out of your own devices
if you (purposefully in my case) decide NOT to log into Apple trackers.]

The question is that if Apple can (and does) lock you out when you decide
to no longer log into tracking servers - why can't Microsoft do it too?

In article <td94r8$1kf0$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> *Apple will unilaterally _disable_ your device* if you do NOT periodically
> log into their Apple iCloud tracking server

apple does no such thing, nor is that even possible even if they wanted
to, something which has been explained to you many, many times.

> - so why can't Microsoft too?

they could, as could google, but they don't, because that would
severely piss off customers which is not a good business strategy.

>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/ZR5mZ287/appleid07.jpg> Apple fails App Store test

that's not a failure of anything, other than your ability to think.

it's asking you to authenticate to download an app from the app store.

the cloud symbol means the app has been previously downloaded, but is
not currently on your device, which means if it was a paid app, you
would not need to pay again to re-dowbload it.

> > the same applies to other messaging apps as well as any other app that
> > requires an account sign-in, such as email, banking, etc.
>
> Bullshit. You're completely ignorant of how Android SMS/MMS works.
> *There is ZERO sign-in required to use the default Android messenger app.*

whoosh.

read it again, this time very slowly. ask questions about the big words.

> >> <https://i.postimg.cc/nrFHSvby/appleid11.jpg> Apple forces periodic login

> > updates are *optional*. you don't have to update.
>
> It has _nothing_ to do with updates you ignorant Apple iKook.

did you not see *update* on the screen shot?

are you unfamiliar with the meaning of that word?

nospam wrote:

>> *Apple will unilaterally _disable_ your device* if you do NOT periodically
>> log into their Apple iCloud tracking server
>
> apple does no such thing, nor is that even possible even if they wanted
> to, something which has been explained to you many, many times.

Bullshit. It's no longer shocking you deny basic facts.
a. Either you're ignorant of these basic facts,
b. Or, you simply lie because you _hate_ these basic facts.

HINT: It's a basic fact you can't use the default iOS messenger without
logging into the Apple iCloud privacy tracking server. Period.

DOUBLE HINT: You can't change the default iOS messenger. Period.
<https://discussions.apple.com/thread/252333795>

Note: We're _always_ talking non jailbroken "normal" devices.

>
>> - so why can't Microsoft too?
>
> they could, as could google, but they don't, because that would
> severely piss off customers which is not a good business strategy.

Then it's _only Apple_ who forces users to log into their mothership
tracking server just so that they can use their devices as designed.

Note: We're _always_ talking non jailbroken "normal" devices.
>>
>> <https://i.postimg.cc/ZR5mZ287/appleid07.jpg> Apple fails App Store test
>
> that's not a failure of anything, other than your ability to think.
>
> it's asking you to authenticate to download an app from the app store.
>
> the cloud symbol means the app has been previously downloaded, but is
> not currently on your device, which means if it was a paid app, you
> would not need to pay again to re-dowbload it.

The fact remains a fact that you can't use the default iOS messenger on the
device WITHOUT periodically logging into the Apple tracking servers.

Since I purposefully TESTED what Apple will do if you refuse to log into
their tracking servers, I know what happens - you don't - and I showed it.

If you don't periodically log into the Apple tracking servers, Apple can
(and does) unilaterally disable some of the key device functionality.

For example, you can still upload the latest iOS but you can't use the
default messenger app (whose default can't be changed, like it or not).

The question remains valid since Apple can (and does) lock you out of your
device functionality if you (purposefully perhaps) refuse to log into the
Apple tracking servers... then why can't Microsoft do the same with Win11?

*If Apple unilaterally destroys your device - why can't MS do the same?*

In article <td9qbt$1niv$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> nospam wrote:
>
> >> *Apple will unilaterally _disable_ your device* if you do NOT periodically
> >> log into their Apple iCloud tracking server
> >
> > apple does no such thing, nor is that even possible even if they wanted
> > to, something which has been explained to you many, many times.
>
> Bullshit.

it's not bullshit.

apple does not nor cannot disable a device because someone does not use
icloud or doesn't log into it periodically.

>
> HINT: It's a basic fact you can't use the default iOS messenger without
> logging into the Apple iCloud privacy tracking server. Period.

icloud is not a 'privacy tracking server'

> The question remains valid

it was never valid.

> since Apple can (and does) lock you out of your
> device functionality if you (purposefully perhaps) refuse to log into the
> Apple tracking servers...

no they do not do any such thing. first of all, icloud is *optional*.
second, it's not a tracking server. third, you're incredibly clueless.

> then why can't Microsoft do the same with Win11?

a microsoft account is now required by default.

it's still possible to not use one, just as it is possible to not use
icloud.