You make a good point, I guess the issue is not manufacturers considering it an appliance or even users considering it an appliance. My main issue is with them intentionally locking it down from the user. For example, in the washing machine I see no reason for it to have a locked bootloader with no way for the owner of the device to unlock it. If some Yahoo wants to hack their washing machine and run Doom and Linux, I don't see why that should matter to Samsung or Whirlpool or Google or Apple or whoever.

So I guess my issue is not thinking of these general purpose computers as appliances, so much as it is treating the owner of the device as a security threat. Secure by default is good, as the vast, vast majority of users would not be tinkering with stuff. But if they want to (and that can fully void warranties IMHO), and they own the device, I don't think the manufacturers should be blocking them.

> So I guess my issue is not thinking of these general purpose computers as appliances, so much as it is treating the owner of the device as a security threat.

And in this we are 100% in agreement.

The issue in the US is that liability falls on the manufacturer if they don't "reasonably prevent" the device from deviating from its designed function. So if you hack your washer machine to do a 20,000 RPM spin cycle and it fails catastrophically and kills someone, they have some liability there. Parents have successfully sued when their kids have 'modified' things that later killed or injured that kid. Just as burglars have successfully sued for being injured while breaking into a facility. THAT part of US tort law is really broken and needs to change.