I agree with you and I believe that is the other side of “immutable systems”, something that is much popular in OS discussion this days that no-one seems to see.
a future where all computing/devices are locked down
And who would mandate and control such a requirement? And how would it be enforced? And why?
The only reason Apple is locked down as it is, is that Apple as the only manufacturer has absolute control over architecture, hardware and software.
Being open will always be a unique selling point by at least some competing companies, so there will continue to be some, absent a dictatorship rigorously controlling the manufacture and sale of such devices. But I think not even China has managed to accomplish that. Open devices are an absolute necessity if you want research and technological progress. And if the industry needs it, some of it will inevitably become available to citizens, too.
And who would mandate and control such a requirement? And how would it be enforced? And why?
Big corps. By monetary power. For profit
The only reason Apple is locked down as it is, is that Apple as the only manufacturer has absolute control over architecture, hardware and software.
That’s the point: for monopolies, open source or open devices are a threat, since they permit to be competition. Companies that sticks with open solutions are still no fully developed monopolies, but keep in mind that for logistical reasons, it’s always goodfor profit to control a bigger fraction of the production.
Being open will always be a unique selling point by at least some competing companies
It will be like that as long there’s market for that companies to exist. But the numbers just show the monopolies going bigger.
so there will continue to be some, absent a dictatorship rigorously controlling the manufacture and sale of such devices. But I think not even China has managed to accomplish that.
China is actually a big place for open technology. First because a big amount of closed western tech is blocked there; second because a good share of their industry relies on coping that same blocked tech. There are less monopolies in there, something that they get from being in a country where the government is bigger than the companies. In the long-term, government dictatorship is actually a minor menace to people’s liberties than the monetary dictatorship, since governments have public faces, known in the common people, and are easier to fight against than the anonymous ghost of action market.
Open devices are an absolute necessity if you want research and technological progress.
I totally agree with you in that, but since when is that the will of corporations? They finance open tech as long that is more profitable and possible than control completely that tech. The MIT legal license was basically created for that very common way of doing business. Monopolies don’t need invocation.
And if the industry needs it, some of it will inevitably become available to citizens, too.
No if the people become more and more alienated from the industrial production, what is happening exponentially!
In conclusion: we are fucked as hell and cyberpunk dystopian future is coming around us!
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
5. Engage respectfully: Harassment, flamebaiting, bad faith engagement, or agenda posting will result in your posts being removed. Excessive violations will result in temporary or permanent ban, depending on severity.
6. Memes are not allowed to be posts, but are allowed in the comments.
7. Posts from clickbait sources are heavily discouraged. Please de-clickbait titles if it needs to be submitted.
8. Submission statements of any length composed of your own thoughts inside the post text field are mandatory for any microblog posts, and are optional but recommended for article/image/video posts.
For “official” Android products, maybe eventually.
In fact I can see a future where all computing/devices are locked down and become appliances, much like your tv or fridge.
You use them how you’re “meant to”. Sideloading? Programming? Tweaking? Why do you need to do that, are you a terrorist?
I hope we don’t get to that world, but for a while now I’ve been thinking it looks like a possible outcome.
I agree with you and I believe that is the other side of “immutable systems”, something that is much popular in OS discussion this days that no-one seems to see.
And who would mandate and control such a requirement? And how would it be enforced? And why?
The only reason Apple is locked down as it is, is that Apple as the only manufacturer has absolute control over architecture, hardware and software.
Being open will always be a unique selling point by at least some competing companies, so there will continue to be some, absent a dictatorship rigorously controlling the manufacture and sale of such devices. But I think not even China has managed to accomplish that. Open devices are an absolute necessity if you want research and technological progress. And if the industry needs it, some of it will inevitably become available to citizens, too.
Big corps. By monetary power. For profit
That’s the point: for monopolies, open source or open devices are a threat, since they permit to be competition. Companies that sticks with open solutions are still no fully developed monopolies, but keep in mind that for logistical reasons, it’s always goodfor profit to control a bigger fraction of the production.
It will be like that as long there’s market for that companies to exist. But the numbers just show the monopolies going bigger.
China is actually a big place for open technology. First because a big amount of closed western tech is blocked there; second because a good share of their industry relies on coping that same blocked tech. There are less monopolies in there, something that they get from being in a country where the government is bigger than the companies. In the long-term, government dictatorship is actually a minor menace to people’s liberties than the monetary dictatorship, since governments have public faces, known in the common people, and are easier to fight against than the anonymous ghost of action market.
I totally agree with you in that, but since when is that the will of corporations? They finance open tech as long that is more profitable and possible than control completely that tech. The MIT legal license was basically created for that very common way of doing business. Monopolies don’t need invocation.
No if the people become more and more alienated from the industrial production, what is happening exponentially!
In conclusion: we are fucked as hell and cyberpunk dystopian future is coming around us!
Sounds dystopian, but I can’t find fault with your reasoning. Thanks for elaborating.