I also prefer to be able to do whatever I want with my own devices, but pretending like it’s an inalienable right, or a natural state, or has no disadvantages is disingenuous and not helpful to the debate.
When was the last time you asked the builders association if you could remodel your kitchen?
When was the last time you asked Honda if you could put new mags on your car?
This whole idea that devices aren't owned when you purchase them is asinine and and insult to humanity.
Your counter arguments that it's new in the industry is simply due to the fact they thought they could get away with it. Not because they thought it was their right.
You don't see Klein putting limits on what nails you can use with a hammer but you can bet your ass they would if they could.
i’m sure you can find an o. s. that lets you do whatever you want. but will it be updated regularly with security fixes? will it support the latest connectivity technology like 5g? will it have built in support for the latest compression formats to take high res pics and videos? will it work anywhere in the world?
if it does sure. go use it. i don’t think this exists and i’m happy to pay apple for a new phone that does this and upgrade every 5 years
Er. Yes? To all of those? Trivially? Heck, Android does those, with the FOSS ROMs typically doing better than the closed vendor solutions.
I agree. But that's not the same as the right to install whatever you want. It's not illegal to jailbreak a phone if you can and want to, but it's also not illegal for Apple to lock it down if they can and want to. That is and should be the default state. And it's the same for everything else, your car, washing machine, game console, etc. If you want general computers to be explicitly defined to include smartphones and uniquely regulated to force more requirements on manufacturers and more rights to users, then that's great—I agree with that—but at least admit it's a new and unique regulation and not the default state.
It's weird you chose houses and cars as your examples since they're both highly regulated in the opposite direction you’re asking for computers. You're heavily restricted to what you can modify in either of those and, as far as I know, there are no regulations that specifically require manufactures to allow users to modify anything. You can swap out parts on your car if it complies with regulations, but there's no law that you have to be able to install software; it's locked down harder than smartphones. And just like smartphones today, you do own it and can do what you want (excluding other regulations), but there’s no right to installation; it's just a lockdown/jailbreak competition between you and the manufacturer.
I’ve jailbroken my phones for years and love to do all sorts of personal modifications to my computers and other devices. I think regulations to protect device freedom are a great idea; I just want people to be intellectually honest about the debate.
That's the problem, it should be.
> It's weird you chose houses and cars as your examples since they're both highly regulated in the opposite direction you’re asking for computers. You're heavily restricted to what you can modify in either of those and, as far as I know, there are no regulations that specifically require manufactures to allow users to modify anything. You can swap out parts on your car if it complies with regulations, but there's no law that you have to be able to install software; it's locked down harder than smartphones. And just like smartphones today, you do own it and can do what you want (excluding other regulations), but there’s no right to installation; it's just a lockdown/jailbreak competition between you and the manufacturer.
That's what OS is for, it prohibits your from installing bomb instead of kitchen appliance. Repeat after me: Store. Does. Not. Dictate. Your. Usage. Of. Device.
You can absolutely disagree with the trade off, but pretending like it’s purely greed is obviously disingenuous.
Is that so? https://lifehacker.com/great-now-the-apple-app-store-has-mal...
Which industry? The very earliest computers ran software written by end-users.
of course I can't install any other software on a CAT scanner, that's the equivalent of what computers were at the beginning, they were single purpose machines, but they could be programmed by the owners almost immediately after being invented.
The computer industry started with microcomputers in the 70s, by the mid of the decade they were cheap enough that individuals could own them and write software for them.
But starting from the 60s students had the chance of sitting at a computer station and programming them to do whatever they wanted them to do, according to their at the time limited possibilities.
I own the freaking thing.
What people are asking for isn’t the right to do whatever they want with their device—they already have that—they’re asking for the law to force Apple to design their OS in a certain way.
And again, maybe that law is the best idea and should be passed—there are certainly a lot of apparent advantages. But I’d ask people to be honest about what they’re asking for. It’s not granting the user any new freedoms; it’s taking away freedom from manufacturers.
It’s like copyright; most people (or at least a lot of people) consider it a good law that encourages more creative work and supports a healthy industry, but it too is a law that removes freedom rather than grants it.