IDK, not really a fan of redefining computer to make a rhetorical point.
It seems counter-productive to tell people the computing device they think as a computer isn’t really a computer. It’s like saying my car isn’t really a car because I can’t adjust spark timing. Someone could make that semantic argument but it’s hard to imagine anyone would care.
Adjusting the spark timing is more a right to repair issue. If you replace the screen of your phone with one of a working phone do you expect it to work or do you need the approval from a licensed apple technician?
A taxi is still a car but we use a different word to differentiate the mode of operation. The difference in language infers different usage of the same machine.
Therefore going by car is understood as something different then going by taxi. In relation to this issue, it's like you rented a car but you get a taxi instead (selected operator controls the vehicle instead of you). Most people would not be pleased.
The problem being that phone or tablet is understood to be similar to computer while really they are not. So perhaps a different term to highlight this difference is not strange or counter-productive. Do you call your "smart tv" a computer in daily conversation?
>It’s like saying my car isn’t really a car because I can’t adjust spark timing.
What if it only drives along select predetermined monetised routes?
What if my aunt had three wheels?
I don’t see the value in hypotheticals like that. If the claim is that a computer is not really a computer unless every user can do any low level operations they want, is it also true that a car is not really a car unless every user can do any low level operations they want?
Manufacturers are taking away right to repair too! I think you picked a bad example. Back in the 60s you absolutely could change every low level component on a car.
I think we call those buses, usually!
No, a Bus is a big car with more space for passengers. The Route has no relation to the naming.
Even a car that you are not allowed to drive at all is still a car. It just isn't your car.
How about instead: is an e-bike a bicycle? Is it a motorcycle?
The apparent user experience between a computer and a mobile are markedly different - especially if you were a Windows user circa 10 years ago. If you were a Windows user in the 90's to 00's, it's nearly unrecognizable in how much ownership you feel over your own device.
Point taken. But I think we can say that smartphones and tablets are definitely not "general-purpose computers" because they are not programmable, at least not freely so.
But they are programmable, very freely even. Whether you can start any desired program on the device is the crucial point. Having gates, doesn't influence what's inside the gates.
> IDK, not really a fan of redefining computer to make a rhetorical point.
Yes! This reminds me of Stallman who is in my opinion a visionary decades ahead of his time, but in terms of marketing he did that a lot and it ended up just distracting from the conversation. All of a sudden instead of discussing the actual issue, we're disussing rhetoric.
Is it still a "car" if it only takes you to the train station and forces you to use public transport? "shuttle" might be more appropriate? Is it still your car if it leaves during the day and carries other people?
The meaning of words drifts when the situation changes.