First off, not putting in DRM is less work. And user control over keys is not hard. They wouldn't need to make anything worse.
But really it's about reasonable fit-for-use regulations. That burger needs to be edible. The restaurant has to follow fire codes, even though that takes extra work. Both of those are orders of magnitude harder, as a percentage of cost, than letting the user control their own device. An even closer comparison is a rule that Tesla has to work with other chargers, which would be a good rule if it doesn't already exist.
DRM is a special new thing that didn't traditionally exist, and we shouldn't let it be used as a way to remove the ability to tinker. It's almost as bad as physically hindering.
Apple and other device manufacturers are following a ton of regulations for how electronic devices have to behave, and interface on the airwaves. You wouldn't demand McDonald's to let you into the kitchen and cook your food exactly to your liking, so why should Apple be forced to do the same?
So your analogy clearly isn't comparing the McDonald's kitchen to an iPhone factory. I'm not asking to alter anything on the production lines, and I'm not asking for any customization before I take the iPhone home.
The analogy is more like comparing the McDonald's kitchen to the iPhone itself? In that case the answer is obvious. I don't own the kitchen, but I do own the iPhone.
But to elaborate on burgers, since you keep making wild extrapolations, all I would demand is that the burgers not have DRM on them (or Food Rights Management?). Thankfully nobody has invented that yet. But imagine if you couldn't combine your own drink with a McDonald's burger, at home. If that kind of anti-consumer practice was possible, I guarantee you'd see it implemented. And we should not treat it as a right of the restaurant as long as they don't "physically" prevent you from doing it. Outlaw it as soon as it seems like it could be possible.
If you demand that McDonalds burgers are not made with McDonalds ingredients, they will not obey. They will likely send you to another burger joint.
Most restaurants of any kind will not let you enter with your own drink or food, so your example can be made both ways.
You're not demanding customization of your iPhone before purchasing it: worse, you're demanding it after your purchase, even though there's no unclarity as to how an iPhone works.
I doubt that the people here have the same entitlement towards other businesses as they have towards Apple. Or at least I hope so.
> You're not demanding customization of your iPhone before purchasing it: worse, you're demanding it after your purchase, even though there's no unclarity as to how an iPhone works.
I'm not demanding they customize it, though. I'm just demanding they don't artificially block customization.
So, like a normal burger. You keep adding weird demands into your analogies, because the straightforward burger analogy is "burger where if I take it home I can customize it at my leisure, no technology applied to make that effectively impossible", and there's no way to twist that desire into sounding unreasonable. The thing I want from Apple is a thing that almost every company already does.
But really it's about reasonable fit-for-use regulations. That burger needs to be edible. The restaurant has to follow fire codes, even though that takes extra work. Both of those are orders of magnitude harder, as a percentage of cost, than letting the user control their own device. An even closer comparison is a rule that Tesla has to work with other chargers, which would be a good rule if it doesn't already exist.
DRM is a special new thing that didn't traditionally exist, and we shouldn't let it be used as a way to remove the ability to tinker. It's almost as bad as physically hindering.