Very much thanks for this text. This makes much sense. I don't think regulation would help ... only ppl who show their raised middle finger to this vendors. I mean this scenario is the scenario ppl thought of when TPM came up ... a fcking closed up device and you are in the hands of the vendors.

People showing their middle finger won't be enough, because the vendors are torn between two groups of interests here:

1. Building a HW/SW product which works within controlled boundaries to provide warranty, support, repairs, future maintenance, Google-compliance, regulatory compliance,...

2. A subset of Customers wanting the HW to be separable from the SW, for product to be open in a way that they can use it differently than intended (potentially creating "Group#3", a HW/SW product with a different SW).

To create a product for Group#2, alot of the aspects of Group#1 still apply, but in a more-complicated, more-expensive manner. If there is a viable business-case for Group#2, it will be a separate more-expensive product with lower volume.

But in reality, the only way a vendor could meaningfully resolve the needs of Group#2 is if ALL his devices support this feature (including customers who don't want a unlockable "open" device now), allowing everyone to become member of Group#2 without having to buy a new separate product.

For this, the economic incentive doesn't exist.

Explicit example: The Fairphone is a great device, but it will never sell more volume than a Samsung Flagship, because it's a device satisfying the conscious needs of a niche of customers, without the chance of reaching comparable volume to compete in all other areas.

That's why the only chance I see is to create a regulatory incentive by making the requirements of Group#2 a part of Group#1, to have the "unconscious needs" of the majority also satisfied.

Because only THEN the mainstream-customer can be converted to *users* of this potential "Group#3" product, and market-forces have a chance to flow freely again, if you see what I mean...