> People should as a matter of principle be able to run whatever they like

Well you are free to provide a platform that is as convenient as ios and as free as linux.

In practice that's not easy to say modestly since convenience require quite an investment in design and developement which free platforms tend to lack.

So in reality it's either a well monetized platform (which is either a walled garden or just sells your data), or free platform which is far behind in terms of convenience and support.

> Also it is quiite clearly a general computing device as it has all the characteristics of one. It isn't a matter of belief.

No, it's exactly your belief. Apple doesn't advertise it to you that way, they doesn't say you'll be able to run whatever you'd like on it, so I dunno where did you get this misconception that they should provide you such an ability.

> Well you are free to provide a platform that is as convenient as ios and as free as linux.

Respectfully you obviously don't understand what I wrote.

I was quite clearly talking about the ability to run an alternative OS on the platform. Not whether there Lineage OS or similar is as good as iOS.

You can install whatever operating system you want on a Laptop or a PC. You can already run other ROM images on Android (though some phones you have to root the device which is not okay.

It isn't about an OS already being there. It being able to run whatever OS might be available.

> No, it's exactly your belief. Apple doesn't advertise it to you that way, they doesn't say you'll be able to run whatever you'd like on it, so I dunno where did you get this misconception that they should provide you such an ability.

There is no misconception on my part. If you look up what makes a general purpose computer, that includes things such as PC, laptops, servers and smartphones. The iPhone has all the properties that make it one.

So whether you like it or not, it fits all the criteria. It doesn't matter what Apple market it as or whether they artifically lock it down. That doesn't fundamentally make it a different thing.

> I was quite clearly talking about the ability to run an alternative OS on the platform.

I got it, and explained how it will hurt monetization of their product. Android is a different story with different (I dare say way more scummy) strategies of monetization.

The point is you can't have a convenient platform which doesn't produce revenue allowing to make it convenient and rewarding the investment.

It was quite clear that you were conflating many things.

As to whether it would hurt monitisation. I don't think it will and even if it did I don't care they have more money than most countries do. If they must be required to by legal means so be it.

Also they already kinda allow some of this when you enable developer mode via a Mac with the appropriate iOS developer account. So there is no reason why they cannot do this tomorrow without the paywall.

> and even if it did I don't care

> So there is no reason why they cannot do this tomorrow without the paywall

Sure you don't when you are dismissing economics of software development so vigorously. Try to look at things from the perspective of economic incentives, not pure technical standpoint. You'll understand why free platforms are way less convenient, and closed platforms are as they are.

The incentives can change through eg law as forest_dweller has already mentioned in his comments. I think most people "understand" the current economic situation works out quite well for closed platforms, but it doesn't mean a better way does not exist and can work out just fine economically

As I said if it has to be mandated legally through a movement similar to right to repair so be it. The incentive will be "you must follow the law or be sued".