They don't have to. Open up the platform for linux and custom OS.
You could make the argument that manufacturers only need to provide the means for the community to support the device, rather than extensive documentation. However, these communities are often so small that this would never be a priority for most companies. Combined with the IP-related issues, I don't think this is really feasible.
You can just stop to the last reason, they don't want to give up ownership back to you.
They would prefer you to throw the device in the bin and buy a new one, preferably from them again.
No, it's simply that your demand is completely unreasonable. You are essentially asking them to adopt an open-source model. That can mean giving up control over its intellectual property and potentially exposing proprietary technology to competitors, especially when some products are valuable precisely because of the software that runs on them.
Edit:
I don't know why it is not allowing me to reply to you.
> No, I'm asking these devices to work like normal computers
What exactly is a "normal computer," and what specific behavior are you expecting?
Can you freely tinker with your motherboard's firmware? Can you modify the Bluetooth or Wi-Fi firmware on your motherboard? Can you modify and independently update the internals of Windows itself? These are all examples of components that are proprietary and subject to limitations, even on what we would consider a "normal computer."
There may be some exceptions to the above, but the same generally applies to mass-produced, commercially distributed devices. They are often locked down for technical, legal, and security reasons, and "unlocking" them is simply not a reasonable expectation in many cases.
Also I doubt that there's anything left on 2015 era hardware that will grant you an edge on current age competitors
To give a reply:
> Can you freely tinker with your motherboard's firmware? Can you modify the Bluetooth or Wi-Fi firmware on your motherboard? Can you modify and independently update the internals of Windows itself? These are all examples of components that are proprietary and subject to limitations, even on what we would consider a "normal computer."
Yes I expect do be able to do all of those things if I want to, it's my computer and I should be free to do whatever I want on it. Including modifying firmware, modifying the OS and modifying anything else you can think of.
Do I want to do all of these? Probably not but the freedom for me to do it should be there if I change my mind. And no, it's a reasonable expectation.
There's a 10 minute timer on HN to avoid discussions becoming too heated (at least AFAIK that's the reason).
> You are essentially asking them to adopt an open-source model. That can mean giving up control over its intellectual property and potentially exposing proprietary technology to competitors, especially when some products are valuable precisely because of the software that runs on them.
...and nothing wrong with that. The right-to-repair is mainly aimed at discontinued products anyway, at that point the "IP" is so old it doesn't require protection (and to be honest, the whole concept of long term "intellectual property" is bullshit anyway, just as long-term "copyright" - about 3 to 5 years is a reasonable time frame for 'exploiting' a novel idea, after that it should be free for all - at that time your competitors will have figured it out anyway).
In the 80s it was entirely normal to get parts lists, schematics and ROM listings when buying a computer for instance (and I guess other electronic devices too), there is absolutely no reason why access to the same information should be restricted today.
E.g.: "for example, you may not be allowed to provide access to the radio firmware." Given that everything has a radio these days (everything is wifi- and/or bluetooth- enabled), this is just stupid. Why is firmware for basically essential infra not legally available?
Same goes for many, many, many other things.
By not doing it you are basically outsourcing this cost to the environment.
Btw, it's difficult to believe the post is a good faith argument.
It's not. It's something they have to stop doing. Stop adding code that specifically stops third party software from running.