Some other examples of why this could be bad:

- Running code on your car that compromises safety, like modifying/disabling legally-required safety features.

- Modifying code on health devices, like pacemakers

- Protective code involving things like overheating protections (e.g., firmware preventing you from disabling cooling fans in your laptop or running your 3D printer so that it catches fire)

- Running devices with parameters known by the manufacturer to damage them (e.g., processor manufacturers will let you overclock their chips but will keep some parameters limited/locked that the designers know will not work)

It’s notable that Google is implementing this change first specifically in countries that are impacted by a specific style of fake app scam. They seem to be responding to a legitimate consumer safety issue.

Should we be able to run our own code on our own devices? Generally, yes, and it’s also already legal to do so even if the manufacturer doesn’t want you to. But it’s also legal for manufacturers to set their own parameters.

Like you said, examples like Kindles and game consoles exist where the business needs to have some level of freedom in defining their business model. Would you be able to buy a $150 4K TV at Walmart if the included Roku software wasn’t subsidizing it?

The issues surrounding anticompetitive lock-down only occur in markets with a lack of competition and I think those issues can be balanced agains the manufacturer’s desires to sell a specific experience.