I was there, Gandalf, 15 years ago. I think the last virus I saw in person was closer to 25 years ago, but I've done my time in the trenches.
Locked-down app stores certainly have significant utility and even should maybe be the default depending on the device, but calling people "assholes" for asking for an escape hatch is extremely odd.
Do you? Because respectfully it seems to me, looking at the phone market at least, that you're the party being exclusively catered to, and you're complaining bitterly that anybody else could be given a choice at all.
Do you want locked down hardware, or are you accepting the locked down hardware because you don't care about it either way, but are otherwise happy (very happy perhaps even) with what those platforms offer? But why can't we have both?
This is not true. A walled garden only works well when it applies universally.
When app developers have the ability to bypass the walled garden, they have many incentives to do so ranging from financial to wishing to circumvent scrutiny. This will include an increasing amount of popular and useful apps, decreasing the options available to those who want to stay in the walled garden. For less technical users they will blindly follow instructions to leave the walled garden.
You are removing the choice of users who want a walled garden by supporting legislation forcing these ecosystems open.
Alternatively it just puts pressure on the walled garden to let people do what that want to do safely within the walls so they don’t have to go through the escape hatch.
Surely, a bunch of assholes want to install software on your phone without your consent, but WTF does that have to do with this conversation, which is about letting you install software on your own phone?
This is confusing. No one (I know) who zealously supports open hardware also thinks that "closed ecosystem" software should be eliminated or undermined.
Making hardware friendly to multiple implementations is good for everyone.
> "Making hardware friendly to multiple implementations is good for everyone."
Yeah, it's called "competition", which time and again throughout history has proven to force all involved parties to improve or perish (good for everyone; at least the "improve" part). Lack of any has proven to foster "enshittification" to the most extreme levels (absolutely bad for everyone).
> I want locked down hardware because of the massive benefits.
> want to rip that option away from me.
You would be free to have that option. Just like everyone else would be free to own the same hardware and escape the walled garden. Nobody would force you to unlock your device. Just keep it locked down. Other people freeing their own hardware has nothing to do with your choice.
