Loss-leader market models don't HAVE to abuse customers. We're just not comfortable with licensing vs ownership arrangements.
Often market forces put us here. Locked, subsidized cell phones with contracts or DRM printers are sold to get people into the market; they wouldn't buy it at full rate.
I don't want to be part of that deal so I buy the unlocked cell phone and DRM-free coffee machine. The alternative is very nearly theft.
I wouldn't agree that the alternative is comparable to theft.
When you buy a thing, you own the thing. The manufacturer may have sold the thing to you at a loss, because statistically this works out for them in the long run, but it's not your responsibility as the consumer to ensure that that deal works out for them.
Take another example: suppose I want to buy a cheap printer to hack up for some kind of robotics project. Can we seriously propose that this would be "very nearly theft"?
Or another: several cruise lines are really inexpensive because the cruise line expects to make most of their money from alcohol and gambling. I don't particularly enjoy alcohol and gambling. Am I stealing from the cruise line if I cruise with them?
Often market forces put us here. Locked, subsidized cell phones with contracts or DRM printers are sold to get people into the market; they wouldn't buy it at full rate.
I don't want to be part of that deal so I buy the unlocked cell phone and DRM-free coffee machine. The alternative is very nearly theft.