My question and premise are very simple, but the legal perspectives on the answer are unclear to me.
A person purchases an Apple computer/phone product directly from Apple (any device requiring agreement to terms of service, end user license agreement, etc.)
During purchase of the product, there is no discussion about what the software legal terms will be -- however, Apple hardware requires the use of Apple software, thus it can be claimed one is purchasing an integrated hardware/software system.
After making the purchase, the customer starts the Apple operating system and diligently makes their way thru every poetic sentence of legalese. Upon reading the contracts (ToS, EULA, etc.), the user decides they in fact do NOT agree with these terms, and do not proceed.
At this point, they have purchased a hardware device which requires using a certain specific software, but they don't agree to the software terms, and are thus unable to use the hardware they purchased for the intended use.
Have I made any incorrect assessments of the situation up to this point?
It seems to me if a hardware company is selling an integrated hardware/software product, which can only run on specific software, the selling party would need to complete the contractual agreement terms with the buyer before the purchase is completed. Or at the very least communicate this situation with the user.
I'm sure this contradiction has no gone unnoticed, so I would appreciate the legal perspective on this situation.