So any computer (phone, tablet, laptop, desktop, watch) would have to allow installing whatever software the user wants. On the hardware level.
That would mean alternative OSes like Linux could run on any computer.
It would still be allowed to ask or even warn the user "Do you REALLY want to install an alternative OS?" but not to ultimately deny it.
But it's clear that isn't what people want. If it was they would be buying it. What they want is what Apple sells. They want iOS. They want the apps and the app store. They want the hardware and the polish. They just also want to be able to install arbitrary software packages.
You can't get that with a law that allows people to install whatever OS they want at the hardware level.
The apps for my bank, the local bus transit system, electronic payments, and even my kid's school, are only available for iOS and Android, and the first three use Google exclusionary software to lock out non-Google OSes. You must have a Mac or Windows computer, or iOS or Google Android, to run the proprietary software used as single-sign-on for most government web apps.
Very few are willing to live without those apps.
I would certainly try out Linux on one of the new 13" iPad Pros with anti-glare display. With an external keyboard, it could make for a great mobile development machine.
And many kids would certainly have dual booted their iPhone into Android when Fortnight stopped working on iOS.
Just two use cases. Who knows how many there are.
As evidenced by the existence of this sub-thread, that is not true.
If we owned our devices, if property law applied, not only would amti-anti-cirumvention be legal, anti-cirumvention would be illegal. It's not your right to control this device, maker. It's mine now.
Okay, but note that this would affect all media protected by DRM … books, movies, and most streamed content. Not so simple to outcompete the lobbyists.
(Because otherwise, you bought a service and not a product; also: if I buy a device and want to use it to do business with someone else, why does the vendor of the device have anything to say about it? Don't I own my device?)
As long as it applies to all companies, why is it an issue?
I’m not arguing that Apple’s geofence is a good solution.
But you can argue that this completely compromises the ability to deliver a secure platform. If you want a platform like that, get Android or F-droid.
Also you can’t install Linux on Android due to the closed specs and proprietary derivers. Not even on Google Pixels advertized by the GrapheneOS crowd.
It'll hit them hard when the EU punishes them again for malicious compliance, and when other countries enact similar laws.
Anyone tried to think a bit back and see where this comes from? it's the EU laws that are demanding this. Since their laws are different (note: I'm not taking sides. I'm not saying there are better or worse, just stating they are as they are). Developers just have to confirm. I does not matter at all if it's apple or google or microsoft or whatever company is involved, the thing is multiple markets have different laws and developers have to follow suit.
