I mean, broadly speaking, I agree, but do you really think that "state-sponsored hacking group that provides the ability to break into people's phones to the worst regimes the world has to offer" is the use case you want to be enabling here...?
If I'm understanding correctly, this wasn't a case of "they agreed to the iCloud EULA because you have to have iCloud to use an iPhone". You don't, in fact. Yes, some services will be unavailable, and...it might occasionally bug you about it? (Not sure about the last, as I do have iCloud) No; they agreed to the iCloud EULA because they were trying to take advantage of unpatched iMessage bugs to break into other people's phones.
I fully agree that the scope of EULAs today is terribly overbroad, but I do not believe that making a legally-binding agreement not to abuse the service to harm other people or steal their data is an inappropriate use of them.
If I'm understanding correctly, this wasn't a case of "they agreed to the iCloud EULA because you have to have iCloud to use an iPhone". You don't, in fact. Yes, some services will be unavailable, and...it might occasionally bug you about it? (Not sure about the last, as I do have iCloud) No; they agreed to the iCloud EULA because they were trying to take advantage of unpatched iMessage bugs to break into other people's phones.
I fully agree that the scope of EULAs today is terribly overbroad, but I do not believe that making a legally-binding agreement not to abuse the service to harm other people or steal their data is an inappropriate use of them.