The Mac has existed for 37 years and the iPhone for 15 of those and the Mac is still open to running whatever OS users choose. You really need to find an argument other than an unqualified "the future is doom and gloom" when after all this time that future hasn't come and the platform remains open.

>The Mac has existed for 37 years and the iPhone for 15 of those

So iPhone is closed for 15 years already and thus "the future is doom and gloom" is happening for 15 years already. The more important question is what will be next.

>You really need to find an argument other than an unqualified "the future is doom and gloom" when after all this time that future hasn't come and the platform remains open.

Argument can be qualified or unqualified depending on the topic. It is unclear which topic assumed here.

> So iPhone is closed for 15 years already and thus "the future is doom and gloom" is happening for 15 years already. The more important question is what will be next.

"I disagree with one product's direction, therefore all other products from the same company are doomed to that direction" is not a valid argument, especially not after 15 years of it not happening. Companies are capable of producing products targeting different markets and use cases.

"Domino's added a pizza I don't like to their menu, what will be next? Their entire line up will be a horrible inedible mess in a few years!"

See how stupid that sounds?

All you have to do is not buy an iPhone (like I didn't either) and stop spreading FUD about Macs.

There is a difference between topic of 'independence and freedom' and the 'topic of security' . They are somewhat related but not the same. If deviation toward the 'topic of security' from the 'topic of independence and freedom' observed and if 'independence and freedom topic' is presented as useless and unrelated to 'real life'. Intentionally or not - in both cases it can be considered as contributing to the "doom and gloom". So I am not sure I need to find other argument as it is provided each time when switching occurs from 'independence request' to ' it's good security'.

>... not a valid argument, especially not after 15 years of it not happening.

It's not about trusting or not particular company. The idea is to protect and insist on certain level of respect toward owners of the computers that no company would dare/able to diminish without consequnces.

>"Domino's added a pizza I don't like to their menu, what will be next? Their entire line up will be a horrible inedible mess in a few years!"

>See how stupid that sounds?

"what will be next" question was addressing the issue of trusting to any company and about level of dependency from any company for any owner of any computer. The context of the question was not about trusting particular company. When the context is switched then anything may appear "stupid" but then it is interpretation to blame not the question.

>All you have to do is not buy an iPhone (like I didn't either) and stop spreading FUD about Macs.

The issue I am discussing can not be resolved by marked and buying preferences and therefore 'just buy something else' would not work and cannot help.

Like I said above, it's not about trusting Macs or company. It's about pushing back against the tendency to make personal computers more dependent and less personal.

It's about respecting independence for the owner not about security, not about trust to a particular company. It's about making trust to the company irrelevant enough. It's about preserving level of respect to the owner which reduces dependency and importance of the trust to a particular company.

> It's about respecting independence for the owner not about security, not about trust to a particular company. It's about making trust to the company irrelevant enough. It's about preserving level of respect to the owner which reduces dependency and importance of the trust to a particular company.

I already explained to you how you have to trust the company if you're using their silicon. There is no way around that for modern devices. You're trying to fight a fight against the laws of physics.

Again, if you need absolute trust, then I suggest you order a Precursor, and then you'll have to be content doing all your computing on a 100MHz CPU.

> The idea is to protect and insist on certain level of respect toward owners of the computers that no company would dare/able to diminish without consequnces.

So you're saying companies shouldn't be allowed to have secure systems that benefit the average user; they should all be forced to do what you say is "respect" users, which means requiring that they develop their own secure boot infrastructure, in your world, since that's the only way they can be in control (or just give up security altogether).

Do you realize how hypocritical it is for someone advocating for freedom to try to take away everyone's freedom of choice by making it illegal or immoral to trade off your own personal vision of freedom for something they might care more about? Seriously, you brought up authoritarian governments, but you're the one using their propaganda tactics here. You're not just saying users should be able to buy devices they control; you're saying they shouldn't have the choice but to be in "control", even if it hurts them in other ways. The Way of the Freedom Party is the One True Way.

Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, there are actual practical consumer-protecting arguments to be made here without resorting to ridiculous extremist positions? Here's one: companies should be required to allow users to run their own software on devices that have reached end of support and are no longer receiving security updates. See? That is the kind of useful policy position that'll get people interested and might even have a chance at becoming law. Not "iPhones are evil and should be illegal".