[ISO-morphism]

> ... for some brands the connection between their brand name and a device they cannot control the presentation of... larger problem.

They should not have this control. Lamborghini doesn't get to stop crypto kids from using non-Lamborghini paint to put anime girls on their cars. Apple shouldn't get to stop users from using non-Apple software to draw pixels on their screens. The "their" refers to the owner of the product, not the owner of the brand.

[MichaelZuo]

The equivalent here is if those crypto kids tried to flash the Lamborghini’s transmission or engine ECU firmware with pictures of anime girls. That would definitely merit much closer scrutiny since if the vehicle ever crashes, who is at fault? Who is liable if the tranmission suddenly seized up and the vehicle plows into a group of children at a crossing?

And if the ECU is destroyed during the crash wouldn’t determining faulty firmware be impossible so Lamborghini would get blamed regardless?

So then the only sensible course of action is to lock it down such that no one can ever change sensitive firmware without Lamborghini approval.

This isn’t limited to cars, a Linux iPad could suffer a catastrophic battery explosion on a flight which causes significant consequences, who is liable?

[oneplane]

You can put stickers and background pictures all over your brand devices too, that's not really a problem. We're talking about circumventing secure enclaves, which I'm pretty sure Lamborghini will sue you (and win) for, same as Sony and Nintendo for example.