It's our responsibility to choose and support products that respect our rights and empower us. Vote with your feet.
1) Goods powered by software are frequently much better than goods without. I mean, compare a phone with software vs. without. Compare a car with software vs. without. Which one would you rather have?
2) Entire industries are converting to software-based capability. Speaking of phones and cars, try to find a new one these days without software in it.
I think we have to adjust, as a society.
Or, we start demanding that software, when purchased as part of a physical device, does not reduce the rights customers have to their physical device.
Im not saying its hard to find them yet, but at this point 2 out of 3 toasters at my local grocery store have software in them - simple software, not connected, but software nonetheless, in a device that needs none, a device that has worked mechanically for decades with no issue... Everything is going that way though, becuase its easier to design something with software rather than figuring out how to make a piece of machinery make a decision mechanically - it easier to just use sensors and software...
It's an issue of patent, copyright and rent seeking. We are so far down that rabbit hole globally, and governments have given far too much for it to be recoverable. Who do I vote for to get wholesale scaling back of IP law? What do I do knowing there's unlikely to be candidates promoting this stance?
Imagine if Consumer Reports could access the code and do a code review when testing a car. We know from lawsuits that Toyota software is absolutely horrible, for instance. I'd think that insurance companies and consumers would benefit from knowing that up front.
Or imagine if repair shops could get certified for access to the software to modify it. Mod shops already do this on the sly--they're just hoping to fly under the law. Maybe they have to carry a bond, like home contractors.
On an Android device or Chromebook there is a user-adjustable setting that permits root powers. If there was a liability standard about this capability, then maybe more companies would feel comfortable offering it.
The ideal would be full source access to everything, but I think there probably will have to be some intermediate steps or limits, as a means of compromise.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure that is true either. I am probably more politically active than most, in that I will actually contact my representatives about issues I consider important. My representatives have, in some cases, been more tech savvy than most as well. And yet still there is little real change in technical fields, because the overwhelming majority of politicians are not aware of the real issues and implications and the briefings they get come from the very big businesses who stand to gain the most from additional laws and variations on the theme of regulatory capture. If the only people running in an election are all like that, who do you vote for if you want something else?
I see a few plausible ways to improve the situation. Firstly, voting with our wallets works if and when there are better alternatives available, and sadly is often far more flexible, far more effective and far more quickly effective than voting in an election.
Secondly, if we can raise the issues to a high enough level of public awareness that they start to become politically relevant, then the politicians will start caring enough to get better briefings and explore more points of view. The danger with this one is that with technology issues, people often only start to care when something significant and bad happens to them personally or to someone close to them, and it may be far too late to fix the underlying problems by then.
One of the possibilities I find most interesting is that in the current political climate in the West, the established political classes are deeply unpopular, and in some cases rival movements are picking up serious interest even if they're a little bit crazy just because they're not the old guard. This also leaves the door open for much more savvy people to enter politics who might never have considered doing so before, and if even a few people who care deeply about some of these issues manage to get into power within national governments, we could start to see some real change.
And of course, there is always the option that many people will take in real life: ignore the restrictions/laws and get away with it. I don't like this one at all personally, because it means those who work within the system are always losing out to those willing to break the rules, but there's no point denying the reality. For example, what are Tesla really going to do to someone who violates this rule? If they start routinely breaking the cars somehow then they're going to face an existential threat to their brand. If they sue the customer, there's a fair chance that they will lose after their terms are found to violate consumer protection laws in enough jurisdictions to kill their whole strategy.
The sad thing is that the final option is often "good enough" for enough people that we don't build enough momentum to push for the other better ones, so the law-abiding but better-wanting citizens lose out as usual.
I think you mean 'wallet'.
But it's hard for consumers when as individuals they have little choice.
Mobile OSs come in 2 flavours. Wherein there is lack of competition, it's nary impossible for consumers to 'vote with their wallets' because there's few other places they can go.
I think this might call for some intelligent regulation.
If you support it, why? Otherwise, your comment adds no more substance than me saying "I'm against this." and offering no further explanation.
This is just the Apple iOS walled garden again.
"If you want to make money using our car, we get a cut".
And I like my iPhone walled garden just fine.
When our government catches up with the idea that if it looks like a purchase, it is a purchase, we'll re-evaluate that decision.