There is no trade-off for most of the users. Time to drop that notion that the whole world consists of wannabe developers. Peope have other activities they want to spend time on instead of tinkering with their devices.
People buy cars that they are free to repair or modify. We've even guaranteed some of those freedoms in law[1], such as 15 USC § 2302(c) which prohibits[1] warranty conditions that forbid using 3rd party parts or independent repair services. (the FTC even clarified[2] a couple years ago that deceptively implying that such a condition exists is also forbidden).
Having the freedom to repair or modify your car does not mean you are a "wannabe mechanic". It may mean that in rare situations, but most people utilize that freedom when they take their car to for maintenance or repair at an independent mechanic. Locking down a device isn't necessary to provide a curated market. Apple could achieve a similar limited-market by including some kind of warranty with apps purchased through their curated store to increase confidence that their curation guarantees a minimum level of quality/security)
This isn't about people wanting to be developers (or mechanics); it's about property rights. Are you buying your phone, or are you leasing it? Apple says[3] "buy" in the page title (and the URL!). The software industry - and recently John Deere - like to pretend that copyright law and carefully worded contracts of adhesion give them de facto ownership over anything by adding software. This misuse of copyright[4] is an attack on property rights. There are many ways to provide convenience, security. Guaranteeing some amount of quality in products or services does not require giving up your ability to own modern goods.
All economic exchange is some form of trade. The parent was assuming the buyer was making an informed trade. I disagree.
You don't have to be a lawyer to know that if a person enters a contract that's cheating them? They probably wouldn't do it if they knew. You don't have to want the world to all be lawyers. All that's happening here is that one person is saying folks are happy with a trade and another person is saying most folks don't understand the trade. Professions, skillsets, or how I'd like the world to be have nothing to do with it.
Absolutely right. There is an implied trade where the user trades control, configurability, etc to get reliability, simplicity, ease of use. The trade is really one-sided though, since most people don't value the former qualities. Consumers frequently trade away anything that isn't part of "consumption". Things that change the ability to spend, acquire, use, and rely on matter a lot, so when they trade money to get those things most consumers take it as a benefit that it won't be self-service. We've practically all made this choice with cars, bikes (lots of custom tools that keep the cycle shops in business), etc.
I'd agree there is a trade, I disagree that it is uninformed. My experience with consumers says that they just do not value the loss of control within the same order of magnitude as they value convenience and reliability.
