The analogy is more like: you gave a delivery company the key to your house and agreed with them they could come take back whatever they delivered to you whenever they wanted to. And then when they did, you got ticked off because you didn't think they ever actually would, or something. And then they apologized, and you didn't take your key back.
Nobody's forcing anyone to buy a Kindle. The DRM and this ability they're retaining is one of the big reasons I don't have one yet (though I have to admit, I'm probably not going to hold out much longer).
> The analogy is more like: you gave a delivery company the key to your house ....
Yes, that's closer. But closer yet would be that we're developing a new kind of housing, which cannot be bought without signing a contract that says the selling company gets a copy of your key. The problem is when this kind of thing gets on the accepted list of "standard business practices", and then people stop noticing that it's a bad idea.
> And then they apologized, and you didn't take your key back.
True, but keep in mind that, to do that, I would have to return the house.
I agree that Amazon has not broken their word on anything. They do not seem to have broken any laws. What they can and cannot do is part of the deal.
However, it is a bad deal. I am not treating Amazon like a company that is not doing what they said they'll do. Rather I am treating them like a company that sells a seriously inferior product. Because the contract is part of that product, and the contract is not good.
Nobody's forcing anyone to buy a Kindle. The DRM and this ability they're retaining is one of the big reasons I don't have one yet (though I have to admit, I'm probably not going to hold out much longer).