[enriquec]

"unlock codes or whatever"

As an engineer, I can tell you it's not even easy to keep things working internally - let alone support every possible integration. Just because it's easy to say, doesn't mean it's feasible to do.

But if you're convinced its what people want, there's nothing preventing you from making it your life - like other people have done with their strategies.

[graemep]

No one is asking for support for every possible integration.

What people are asking for is not actively preventing other integrations. That means through business means and deals as well as technological measures.

[xxpor]

I gotta be honest, I really feel like these comments are completely divorced from reality.

No one (p99.99) wants to get rid of Google/Apple on their phones. But "how do I install Play services" is a wildly popular search for people who own Kindle Fires.

No one wants to deal with the Windows 98ificaiton of phones.

[refulgentis]

I appreciate the engineering perspective, and you're right that supporting every integration isn't trivial.

Is there a difference between providing an "unlock code" upon deprecation, and requiring "support for every possible integration"(?)?

Setting that aside, it seems it not every possible combination needs official support, but rather that providing an open or documented way for motivated users or communities to build upon or repurpose devices would be beneficial. Many projects exist precisely because tech companies allowed or at least tolerated community-driven solutions.

It's less about expecting everything to be effortless for the original manufacturer, and more about avoiding deliberate restrictions that prevent the community from extending a device's useful lifespan.

[GTP]

> Is there a difference between providing an "unlock code" upon deprecation, and requiring "support for every possible integration"(?)?

As a different engineer than the one you where replying to, I can say that yes, there is a substantial difference between the two. What the original comment was likely referring to with unlock codes, is the ability of unlocking a smartphone's bootloader so that one is able to install custom ROMs. But this is very different from providing support for said ROMs. A company can totally say: "here's the unlock code, but you use this under your sole responsibility, we will void your warranty if you do this". Being able to install custom ROMs at the cost of losing the warranty is a compromise I'm willing to accept: one can still wait for the warranty to expire and then install custom ROMs.

[Teever]

Do the tech companies that make the devices that we now require for daily life because they decided to make the world that way release all of the resources necessary for independent people to do what you're suggesting?

If not that's something that we need to regulate.

[enriquec]

The regulations stop more people from being able to do this than competition does. "because they decided to make the world that way" Who is "they"? Participants in the free market? I don't think inept politicians should supersede them.