We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

> It should be possible to run Android on an iPhone and manufacturers should be required by law to provide enough technical support and documentation to make the development of new operating systems possible

As someone who enjoyed Linux phones like the Nokia N900/950 and would love to see those hacker-spirited devices again, statements like this sound more than naïve to me. I can acknowledge my own interests here (having control over how exactly the device I own runs), but I can also see the interests of phone manufacturers — protecting revenue streams, managing liability and regulatory risks, optimizing hardware–software integration, and so on. I don't see how my own interests here outweigh collective interests here.

I also don’t see Apple or Google as merely companies that assemble parts and selling us "hardware". The decades when hardware and software were two disconnected worlds are gone.

Reading technical documentation on things like secure enclaves, UWB chips, computational photography stack, HRTF tuning, unified memory, TrueDepth cameras, AWDL, etc., it feels very wrong to support claims like the OP makes. “Hardware I own” sounds like you bought a pan and demand the right to cook any food you want. But we’re not buying pans anymore — we’re buying airplanes that also happen to serve food.

>“Hardware I own” sounds like you bought a pan and demand the right to cook any food you want.

Because I did. How come I can do what I want with my computer, but not my phone? Why are phones so inferior in this area?

My phone is more powerful than many of the computers I've had in the past, yet I need to jump through a million hoops to use it as a software development platform. Why?

Your smartwatch is probably more powerful than some of your past computers too. Same with your DSLR camera. Even your smart fridge. These are specialized hardware+software gadgets designed to a particular purpose, which is very different from being a development platform. Same with a phone.

>These are specialized hardware+software gadgets designed to a particular purpose, which is very different from being a development platform.

Then I shouldn't be able to install software on it at all. For any given device either its functions are fixed, or they're modifiable at the sole discretion of the owner. There should be no middle ground.

> There should be no middle ground.

Why?

Because that's what ownership is. The owner of something has complete decision power over that thing, not anyone else. That might leave him with some liability depending on what he does, but that's his prerogative.

Ownership is rarely absolute. It can be partial, segmented and with different degrees of control.

Think about music rights ownership - there are mechanical rights, performance rights, sync rights, derivative rights, etc. I'm not defending music industry ownership system, but it shows clearly that binary view of ownership is far from reality.

You own the flat, but you can't remove the wall. You may own the house, but you can't build a factory there due to zoning regulations. You can own electric car, but you can't put diesel fuel there.

I see that main disagreement here is whether phones are "general purpose computers" or not. I have no idea why anyone would call these ultra-packed cameras on steroids a "general purpose computer". Framed like this, this is a debate about OP demanding private companies to transform their product into something very different and urging governments to step in. And the thing is those products exists – Libreum 5, Ubuntu Phone or PinePhone phones, or already mentioned Maemo/MeeGo phones (N900/N9/N950). If they were a better product on the market, we would have them everywhere, but industry and market decided otherwise (PinePhone was discontinued just couple of weeks ago, sadly).