Agreed. But they don't. I think this the point of government intervention to require or provide incentive to do something which benefits society even if it doesn't benefit the company.
Automobile safety and emissions limits comes to mind for me.
Nah, the capabilities can be limited, just not artificially so. I understand there is a bunch of nuance in that statement that we can get lost in discussing, but the brief salient point is "if the manufacturer can do something to my device, then they should not add restrictions for me to try to do it also". We don't need to get lost in the what-ifs that such freedom discussions often devolve into.
I would be comfortable with a high quality legal encoding of the Your Device principle:
"To the extent a device, or part of a device, behaves like a general purpose computer or could easily and reasonably be made to behave that way if not for artificial restrictions placed upon it by a vendor, the effective owner(s) of the device or part shall have the right to use and control the general purpose computer aspects as they deem appropriate."
"Effective owner means those using the device as if they own it, so where a device is technically rented or licensed from a vendor, the renter or licensee is deemed the effective owner for application of this principle".
Details of what that means in practice for non-obvious edge cases would be fleshed out by precedent and the courts I guess.
It would not limit what devices can be manufactured, but it would place a requirement of access and control on some kinds of devices.
Companies producing specialized hardware/software couplings does not preclude another company developing open options.
I usually choose an open option for most of what I do but when it comes to some mindless gaming or my phone that I use for some sensitive matters I want them limited in their scope in a big way.
I don't understand this all-or-nothing argument that seems to be made when it doesn't reflect the reality of the situation.