[rekoil]

Conflicting regulations when it comes to cars, and for WiFi refrigerators (meaning any gadget that runs some sort of OS) I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think it makes sense to make different regulation for general-purpose computing devices and purpose-specific devices.

Though if you ask me, software should be covered by right-to-repair. I should have everything I need to technically be able to support my own device when the manufacturer throws in the towel. Unlockable bootloader, source code for device bring-up, drivers, but not necessarily an OS, just the device specific stuff.

[wtallis]

How would you classify a PlayStation: general-purpose computing that should be required to be open, or purpose-specific that can be allowed looser regulations?

[izacus]

PlayStation 3 ran Linux just fine so it can be classified as a computer and forcefully opened. Not sure why do you all think this is some "gotcha" when the corpos you defend proved you otherwise already.

[wtallis]

I'm not defending the corporations, just bringing up an important borderline case that any regulatory proposal needs an answer for.

On the one hand, the hardware of a PlayStation is pretty close to a general purpose PC and some iterations have been claimed as such by Sony for tax reasons. On the other hand, a great many PlayStation customers would be up in arms if regulators forced the platform open in any way that weakened the security that their competitive multiplayer experiences are built to rely on.

[rekoil]

PlayStation is a games console, it's a purpose-specific device. I think there needs to be regulation there as well, but not the same regulation as for general-purpose computing devices like the iPhone or Android, or whatever Apple are slowly trying to turn MacBooks into.

I don't pretend to know all the answers, my stance is that the reason our society is where it is today is at least in part because computers have been computers, and not this "my way or the highway" approach Apple has for the iPhone.

[JumpCrisscross]

> PlayStation is a games console, it's a purpose-specific device

Why isn't the iPhone a smartphone, a purpose-specific device?

> there needs to be regulation there as well, but not the same regulation as for general-purpose computing devices like the iPhone or Android

This shifts the game from defining what Apple can and cannot do to what a general-purpose computing device is. And that's the point. That's why this framing is great if you're Apple. A specific discussion regarding tangible outcomes morphs into an arcane debate over jargon and philosophy.

[rekoil]

> Why isn't the iPhone a smartphone, a purpose-specific device?

Because it can be extended via software to support whole new categories of apps.

Sure, a games console technically is a computer and the above statement is true for it as well, but it wasn't marketed as such.

[wvenable]

What about my obsolete car software?

[rekoil]

That's a little different, but an interesting topic to discuss!

In my opinion there are 3 ways forward in such situations.

1. The manufacturer designs the car so that the infotainment unit is replaceable when they stop updating the original. Replacements not certified as "road safe" would be illegal to install.

2. The manufacturer literally never stops updating the software... (yeah, obviously this isn't a real alternative, but it's technically acceptable if a manufacturer wants to attempt to make that promise)

3. The manufacturer, after ceasing updates, provides the necessary documentation for an alternative software to be built, but it wouldn't be obviously legal to install just anything, the software would need to be certified "road safe" and how you would assert that you're not running unsafe software is not obvious to me.