Comment by zigzag312
20 days ago
Computing devices hardware and operating systems should be treated as essential digital infrastructure, with laws in place to ensure that the owner of the device retains full control over it and to prevent manufacturers or developers from over-imposing their control.
Computing devices hardware and operating systems should be treated as a consumer's choice.
If a company offers some benefit at the cost of some restriction, then users should decide if that benefit is worth the cost. For most Android users, it will be - my grandma isn't interested in the freedom of indie devs to develop for her phone, she's interested in not accidentally installing malware.
I don't like that as much as you don't - for my own devices. But like anyone else who cares about that, I can root it and get past the digital nanny state.
I would agree of there was a choice or actual free market. But there isn't, and your argument is fundamentally flawed. Because there often is no actual choice, the options are artificially restricted. Starting with, many phones cannot be rooted. Then, if you can root, multiple functions are suddenly unavailable, not because of a fundamental technical problem, but because Google, the phone OEM or the app dev decided to not give you the options you wanted.
If you treat it as a consumer choice, there's a rather uncomfortable marketing question - "What, precisely, is the value proposition of a locked down Android device?"
A few years ago "A smartphone so intuitive that grandma can understand it." used to literally be one of the arguments cited for picking iOS over Android. The UX is far more polished and you are far more likely to find an interesting iOS-exclusive app than an Android-exclusive.
Further, as a hardware manufacturer, Apple is far more likely to manage its walled garden in the consumer's interest, as compared to Google - an advertising company.
If Android gets locked up, all the high-end Android manufacturers, especially Samsung, are going to face a slow, but inevitable death.
The Play Store doesn’t protect your grandma from installing malware. Using that as an excuse for transferring control is weak and carries much bigger consequences.
Owner having full control over the device does not prevent a company to offer same benefits and restrictions. But these restrictions need to be optional, so the owner can decide whether to enable or disable them.