It's much safer! Just think what could happen to you in some ghetto! And that guy is completely creepy anyway.

That's pretty much what your argument sounds like to me. Hardware vendors (perhaps other than hardware preconfigured for a particular purpose, i.e. picture frame) should have no say in what runs on that hardware, full stop.

The simplest way to do this would be like on android devices when you want to unlock a bootloader - a one way, single step process, where the phone wipes itself and reboots and is then "unlocked". If you did that on iPhones it would be enough of discouragement to stop all the mums and grandmas from accidentally installing dodgy software off the internet, but it still leaves the final choice to you, the user. You want a bodyguard, not a nanny - there's a difference.

The point is that this isn't 1986 anymore and when everyone's devices are locked down it prevents competition because there's no distribution method for homebrew software. If there was no ability to install custom OSs on IBM and IBM-compatible machines we wouldn't have Linux. And if Microsoft was the gatekeeper of what websites could be displayed on IE in the 90s we wouldn't have the web in the form we know it today. So sure, you personally may be able to buy development boards specifically but when you can't get your software to the average person's device, what does that mean for adding competition to the market?

I'd much rather live in a world where being more open means there might be some malware lurking as opposed to one where everything is so locked down that I am at the mercy of what these large corporations deem acceptable for me to do on hardware that I "own" in the name of safety and security.

In a well functioning market it would be a different story but we really need to stop pretending that mobile OSes are a healthy market with lots of competition. There are 2 players worth mentioning and that kind of market needs additional safeguards

You're free to install an alternative infotainment system that allows customization.

Mandating that manufacturers develop a way for you to safely/securely flash their devices to run your own software just doesn't seem like a good idea. The small percentage of people who want this force everyone else to pay for it due to the increased operational costs to develop it.

And it's not trivial. I've shipped consumer electronics. We thought long and hard about how to make it possible for users to run their own software. It's hard enough to figure out a method that doesn't sacrifice user safety somehow (can you RMA the device after? Can we validate you voided the warranty? Can you resell your device and tarnish the brand? Can you resell devices with malware? Can you exceed regulatory limits (e.g. radio broadcasting power)?)

Not to mention the effort to actually develop and maintain this method of updating, exposing it (adding a USB port?), testing it, etc. It's a huge cost.

Now, companies like Apple are interesting because they're actively spending to prevent that from happening -- it might be operationally cheaper for them to leave the flood gates open.

i’m kind-of not kidding, either — more asking. is there precedent for governments being able to force companies to completely open up their systems to whatever the courts define as “competitive?”

Part of the reason I buy Apple devices is because Apple is unlikely likely to get acquired or go out of business for the foreseeable future. I wish there were viable alternatives. Android devices are not an option for me, as they are more likely to be abandoned and/or contain Google/manufacturer/carrier malware, and I need to use banking and work apps.

In that same vein, I have a preorder for a Framework Laptop because, at least for actual computers, I have the option of not splurging on a non-upgradeable, non-customizable Apple device.

We really shouldn’t have to wait for Librarian of Congress-granted exemptions, which can be rescinded at any time and are meaningless with locked-down devices anyway.

I actually think the option 1 world would actually be better than deriving rights from device ownership because then it would be super easy to get around by renting devices or by using SaaS services; consumer protection litigation protects you against various types of fucking in all cases.

I don't really want to live in a world where companies are allowed to be maximally evil with their software but it's okay because you are technically allowed to replace it with your own. All this would do is allow a tiny tiny fraction of the population to enjoy their devices while everyone else would be fucked.

I'm on the side of "I would personally love if companies were required to allow/support device modification but the justification for such a thing is weak and wouldn't actually protect or solve problems for consumers."

And the fun part is this: I made my first post in this thread having in the past said that I really didn't mind the status quo but you've successfully convinced me that that hammer should be swung at them as hard as it possibly can be.

But no. I have to buy a $1200 mini-computer and then accept the arbitrary whims of Apple on what code I can run when.

Apple since 2008: Tells people that they can't install programs on their own devices. Any mention of asking the government to force them to stop this is met by Hacker News users vehemently defending their right to let Apple (and only Apple, at all times, with no off switch) decide everything.

I don't buy it. Something stinks here. This is nothing short of a digital new world order and obviously the current status quo is very, very valuable to the companies who run these platforms but I believe it's also very valuable to the entire power matrix that holds us all in check.

Say I make the Avocado Phone:

- my entire shtick is that "you can only run apps we make, and we vet the source code of every one of the few thousand third-party apps we allow on our device. We will pay you $10,000 if you get compromised using our phone"

- Of course, to achieve this, the phone can't be susceptible to "informed" evil maid attacks (as in, say the hotel's cameras capture you entering your passcode and Avocado ID Password) that replace your OS with an identical one preloaded with Malware. This means that, even as a user, you literally can't load any other software onto the bootloader or OS that would touch the operating system.

- it also takes every opportunity to prevent third-party apps from gaining access they don't need, which includes disabling JIT compilation (ruling out third-party browser engines, unless they want to use a slow javascript interpreter).

At what point does my phone turn from a product that services the security-conscious crowd with a completely bulletproof device, into something that people want to be able to preload software onto, because they didn't realize that security comes at a price? Is it when I sell enough? Is selling 10 million a year enough to where my market presence becomes a problem? 100 million a year? Why would people buy it if the government forces it to be 'open' at the cost of invalidating its entire use-case of being a secure device?

People absolutely should be able to switch off OTA updates, but there’s absolutely no need for a third party (such as dealerships) to be involved. Dealerships also don’t want you to be able to update your car’s software on your own, which is anti-consumer.

So in my mind this legislation shouldn’t be supported. Regulations requiring user control of automotive software should be coming from the angle of right to repair, which benefits buyers instead of dealers.

The problem is that with software on a general purpose computer, the issue must be taken to its logical extreme. Presumably someone advocating for digital restrictions doesn't envision settling for merely having the default install exhibit a behavior that can be changed with two minutes of following online instructions. Simply creating a restriction is not enough - for it to be effective, it must be fortified.

And that's the trouble, for the only way for that to happen is the platform to be fully locked down, removing the user's ability to modify. Phones are already perilously close to this regime, but manufacturers seem to not be seriously addressing rooting for right now. We can look to other areas (eg wifi routers) to see manufacturers only getting the idea because of half-baked government policy, and its needless chilling effects on software freedom.

(of course I haven't said anything about texting and driving itself, so you should just assume I think it's a bad idea like any reasonable person. I'm just pointing out that arguing for outlawing Free phones to prevent it is of the same non-starter category as arguing for outlawing cars)