> It should be possible to run Android on an iPhone and manufacturers should be required by law to provide enough technical support and documentation to make the development of new operating systems possible
I was writing in reference to this quote ^
It would have been more accurate for me to say "support the development of arbitrary software stacks," but where do you draw the line between "supporting the development of" and "supporting"?
Because the documentation is already written, it just isn't opened up. All you need to do is open it up. The big stumbling block when writing drivers for new hardware is simply to know what goes where.
As soon as you open up the means, you open up an expectation of support
If Apple provided all the docs, people would start building, and then they would start complaining when Apple doesn't consider them a customer of the business, and Apple would eventually be forced to react, which would take energy away from there core commitment: delivering a unified product experience for consumers
I suspect you don't understand this, but this is why corporations are deliberately unhelpful in many (annoying) ways, and why people don't share things in general as much as you'd hope
Op here: The point I'm trying to make in the piece is that this is less authoritarian than the common suggestion that Apple and Google be forced to change how iOS and Android works. The piece is meant to be a juxtaposition to that idea.
If I make a product and I don't specifically help you do certain things with it, is that authoritarian?
Regardless, we're talking about products here—"authoritarian" is a word reserved to situations where the threat of force is involved.
In this specific example, forcing a company to do something is authoritarian (because they will be fined or jailed if they do not comply with the rules). Corporations are not, as a rule, authoritarian—they may, however, do things that are not to your benefit or liking.
> If I make a product and I don't specifically help you do certain things with it, is that authoritarian?
If were referring to products necessary to function in society, YES! Obviously yes, a big exclaiming yes, yes with no room for debate.
A car, but you can't drive anywhere but to work. Electricity, but you can't use it to listen to radio that criticizes our dear leader. A TV, but you can't use it to watch anything other than military parades.
A phone, but you can only use it to perform government approved actions on government approved software.
> A phone, but you can only use it to perform government approved actions on government approved software.
Are you not more or less arguing for this?
But you're right to point to a nasty problem, the solution to which is not obvious: "what do you do when society begins to rely on something created by a corporation, which is not accountable to a populace?"
Turning the corporation into a mini government may not have the effects you want
