> The fact that mobile phones aren't yet just a standard type of portable computer with an open-ish harware/driver ecosystem that anybody can just make an OS for (and hence allow anybody to just install what they want) is kind of wild IMHO.
It's because the "killer app" of phones is that they are a phone, aka a remote communications tool that relies on a subscription payment to access someone else's infrastructure. People don't care that phones are not general purpose platforms, because the point of having a phone is to communicate with others, which currently requires paying for that privilege.
If you didn't have to pay for access to a network, and the phone still worked as a phone, then you might see a change.
But the vast, vast majority of that communication is done over IP and has been for the past decade. It's not a "phone" at all. It's a computer with an Internet connection.
and you are welcome to buy a hackable tablet to run a browser or desktop app and use that for all your comms. This is not how most people work though :)
The far far worse issue is that public utilities (i.e. governments) and entities like banks force you to use an app only available through one of 2 privately owned distribution channels to interact with them. IMO this is a far worse and pervasive issue than phones being locked hardware.
You're actually not free to do that, because of arbitrary limitations created to siphon more money from your pocket.
And I agree that number 2 is worse, but it doesn't mean that phones being locked is chill so long as banks give you a Windows app.
No, it's still bad. They're general computation devices. I don't care what anyone says - they're not a washing machine. They're indistinguishable in hardware from any other general purpose computer.
> It's because the "killer app" of phones is that they are a phone, aka a remote communications tool that relies on a subscription payment to access someone else's infrastructure.
My computer's killer app is to be a remote communications tool that relies on a subscription payment to access someone else's infrastructure.
But you can. I don't even use telephony anymore; it just works like crap here. I have all my calls over IM. At that point the phone is literally just a normal PC with an Internet connection, it just so happens the connection is wireless.
See my other reply to sibling. If this is how you operate, you are welcome to purchase or build hardware that better reflects your needs. Forcing a private company to modify their product, which people are happily paying for, because you personally disagree is a stretch. The better argument is that other entities whom you pay (government; tax, bank; fees) shall allow non Play or Apple store interfaces to their services, and not supporting this is an abdication of their responsibility to you.
>Forcing a private company to modify their product
You have it backwards. The consumer is the one who pays for the product, he's the ones who should get a say of what does or doesn't run on it. You would not accept the same restrictions of any other kind of device. You would think it's an overreach for a printer manufacturer to design its printers so they only accept ink cartridges it approves.
Yes - and the consumer is choosing to buy this product. You can't claim that the vendor should change the product after it has been purchased.
No I don't think it is overreach, I think it is good business. Other institutions (usually, ideally) put constraints on capitalism, through e.g. mandating USB-C, which could also be applied to printer cartridges. A printer company could even do a Patagonia, and make the most environmentally friendly, reusable, printer system available and make it part of their branding.
>You can't claim that the vendor should change the product after it has been purchased.
The vendor is changing the product after it has been purchased, by removing features through software updates.