If I build an operating system + hardware, should I be legally mandated to provide tooling to make it easy for users to find and install arbitrary software?
I also don't think this serves the public interest. App developers have much less interest in maintaining the privacy of users and making it easy to cancel subscriptions, among other things.
As I mentioned in another reply, both Apple and Google, despite not being monopolists, can arbitrarily restrict competition, because they have the power to refuse serving some apps. I would argue that it is dangerous, and corporations should not have that kind of power.
At one point AT&T was required to allow consumers to buy and connect their own handsets rather than only allowing them to rent from AT&T. Isn't that similar?
No, what you described was a simple change in how the product was distributed. Forcing Apple to engineer a way to add 3rd party app stores on their platform would require significant engineering effort from them and changing their operating system internals significantly.
For Apple it might be less expensive to just make a single policy change - allow apps to use alternate payment providers. That feels somewhat close to forcing AT&T to allow alternate telephone providers.
Competition is the basis of functional free market - and forces which prevent it are driving it to be abusive and not force of progress anymore.
This is a prerequirement for free market to work - the option for new competition to crop up in different fields and give you more options, more innovation and the ability to beat the platform owner at their own stagnation.
This does not exclude the platform owner from launching their own stack and competing on its merits. It's the forceful blocking that's anticompetitive and prevents innovation and improvement.
Frankly, if it's between opening up iOS to all software or no third-party software at all, I'd take the latter. That's the peace of mind I wanted when I bought my iOS item. Having a singular, curated App Store is the next best thing for that kind of platform. There are other platforms available for other designs and purposes.
Apple doesn't stop you from doing anything with your device, Apple thugs won't break your kneecaps if you subvert their restrictions.
Apple has added code that's explicitly built just to prevent running code without their approval. They even add code that prevents usage of compatible periphelas that don't have their own DRM chip. They've built dedicated hardware just to lock you out of doing "anything" with your device.
That's a really really bizarre definition of "doesn't stop you".
Only because of a temporary DMCA exemption that Apple has consistently opposed. If they had their way, jailbreaking would be a federal crime.
Take the world "arbitrary" and we can see the truth.
Now let me rephrase this in the right way, to avoid the language tricks used on your question.
Should the user have the right to install software on the device they bough and therefore, they own?
Its not "legally mandating" the provider to be "forced" to do anything. Its just a matter of rights of the user who buy stuff from anyone.
Its a pure ethical thing to do, that protects the user freedom, and thats what the law should do, to protect the rights of the party with the least power in a negotiation between two parties. Especially if the concept of property and ownership is involved.
I dont get the half of the comments in this thread. If we depended on your point of views, we would be stuck with the Intels, Microsoft's, Apples and the likes with absolute control into our digital lifes.
Remember Prism and the collusion of goverment spy agencies and tech companies to know everything everyone was doing?
Now imagine how much power this represents? Imagine a modern fascist with that much power on his hands? What would he would be able to do?
You dont even need to get into conspiracy theories, but just think about the rights and freedoms of the users against the effort of tech companies to control them.
But to avoid the centralization of power and control would be a side-effect of people standing for those simple right's.
The rules are different when free-markets fail, and one product or service dominates the entire market segment or exerts a large influence on the market (as determined by a legal authority).
The entire purpose of government is to serve our needs, if its no longer doing that we should amend laws/rules/policies as necessary. Everyone should be free to make an argument for their case.