3 ms·
> I believe consumers, as a right, should be able to install software of their choosing to any computing device that is owned outright. That's easy to say, but
by jopsen 2y ago
> I believe consumers, as a right, should be able to install software of their choosing to any computing device that is owned outright.
That's easy to say, but hard to legislate, and impossible to enforce.
There is so much firmware around, small binary blobs burned into micro controllers that can't even be updated. Or that isn't intended to be updated.
There are probably even dimmable LED bulbs without IoT features that still have a microcontroller.
Because a tiny microcontroller is the cheapest way to add logic to anything.
I'm not sure it isn't a good idea. Just not sure we grasp the ramifications.
- raxxor 2y agoI think a definition would exclude µC, dsps asics, fpga, etc. While most of those have the ability to program themselves, not all programs support such features. And for external programming you need programming devices who would also need physical interfaces where no standard connector exists. But a definition for general purpose computing devices wouldn't be harder than to craft legislation that requires my banking app to run on a certified shitty app environment.
- palata 2y ago> and impossible to enforce. You don't have to enforce it for every single manufacturer and every single product. If you enforce it for Apple, Samsung and a couple other big Android brands, you'll get most smartphones. Now whether it is a good idea or not, I don't know. But if you wanted to enforce it, I think it wouldn't be too hard. Banks get a ton of regulations and have to apply them all the time. Surely Apple or Samsung could do that, too.