For the record, I agree with you.

It is the "small" nuisances such as "AppleID", "AppStore" and "XCode" that differentiate now from then.

I have owned Apple HW both then and now. These "hoops" are not optional conveniences, they are forced.

The Apple computers now come with "services" pre-installed. Other companies pay for placements. Again, not optional. Nor a new idea. We saw this with crapware on PC's and laptops.

But, unlike crapware, these cannot be uninstalled. The best one can do is ignore them. This is not always enough since they may be unintentionally launched and run in the background.

The company makes a determination on what users "should" want, and wiping their computer free of all marketing is not among the "acceptable" uses. I bought the HW. It is mine. That is how things used to be.

Whether I choose to continue to interact with Apple afterwards is my choice, not Apple's.

Stupid example: How do I use my own time servers for setting system time in iOS? Should I have to work around a default setting by the company that cannot be disabled or should I be given control to create or change that setting in the first instance? Is appropriate for the company to assume I want to use their remote servers and data centers for anything?

For those who understand what "root" is, the idea of having to "root" a computer you bought is insane if you think about it.

In a former decade Apple marketing claimed the company was moving in a different direction from IBM where they alleged individuality was being stifled. "Following the company line" was frowned upon. If the marketing was to be believed, Apple would presumably set the user free.

Today, Apple uses UNIX-like, free BSD-licensed software, and its implementation of permissions to appoint themselves as remote "system administrator" for every person who buys one of their computers.

As if these computers all belong to a single company and hence must all run the company-approved OS and seek approval for changes, installing software, etc. What about individual users who are free to think for themselves and make their own choices? In Apple's view these users either do not exist or they should look elsewhere for their computers.

The saddest part of this "evolution" toward control of the user after purchase and lock-in to becoming a patron of Apple businesses, and the success Apple has had, is that other companies try to emulate it, e.g., Microsoft.

Fortunately it seems like Apple users are starting to question some of the tactics, e.g., removing headphone jacks. Windows users complained about version 8 when the "Start" button disappeared. But consider younger users who may never have been exposed to S/PDIF headphone jacks or a Windows "Start" button.

If older computers gave users more control and posed less risk to user privacy, then this I think is not a part of history that these market-driven companies have any interest in keeping alive through future generations.

I believe that when users defend one or the other of these large companies all trying to lock them in (presuming they have no financial stake of said companies), they may be simply reacting, maybe subconsciously, to a lack of choice and a feeling of helplessness. These are users who must accept at least one of these companies into their daily computing activities and so they defend their "choice". No user can be faulted for this when they effectively have no real choice.

As I see it, the notion of having "choice" in computer use is becoming more and more illusory. This is especially true for younger users born into a world where they can and do depend on their computers for almost everything.

One might argue that they are left to "choose" to between the lesser of a few evils. They have to "trust" at least one of these companies. Not 50% trust but 100%. They must go "all in". For whatever reason, some will commit themselves 120%. They will be the staunch defenders, the advocates, the "influencers".

The question is how much of the trust is actually earned by these companies versus being given to them by users on faith in the face of no viable alternatives. I remember not having to even consider whether to "trust" Apple. Back in those days brand-new computers did not begin sending packets to company-selected remote servers as soon as you plugged them in for the first time.

It should go without saying but the "monopoly" issue might also have some relevance to an absence of real "choice". That is all I will say.