show me one ToS for any major service that has "interoperability" in their clauses.
"interoperability" is never the case in the agreements.
it is very stupid decision from business perspective. and unless legally required (like in agriculture or something, "right to repair"), no sane business will provide this to their customers.
> show me one ToS for any major service that has "interoperability" in their clauses... no sane business will provide this to their customers.
I will concede your observation that often businesses act unethically if it means they get more money.
But, ethics doesn't mean "obey the ToS", it means structure the ToS such that the ToS itself is ethical. In my opinion (which is equal in value to yours), banning interoperability in a ToS is even less ethical than violating such an unethical ToS.
For a clue as to why that is, ask why "right to repair" exists as a concept. What are the ethical principles underlying "right to repair"? After all: like you say, companies could make more money by forbidding it in their ToS (and have).
