Ues, it’s happening. For instance, Apple is attacking general-purpose computing consciously: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU05/20190716/109793/HHRG....

I don't see anything about general computing there, am I missing something?

Apple still makes macbooks, and those have documented and well supported methods to disable all protections so that user code can be loaded.

If you are trying to say that iPhone should be a general-purpose computer, then I am going to ask: "why?". There are different devices for different purposes. The phone does not need to be general purpose, and back in the day my Nokia had no software customizeability at all. And if you want a phone which can run arbitrary software, there are plenty of unlockable Android headsets on the market.

It is like saying "Ford is attacking fuel-efficient cars" because they are making F-150 truck.

> I don't see anything about general computing there, am I missing something?

Did you already accept as a fact that phones are not general-purpose computers? But they should be! Here is an example: https://puri.sm/products/librem-5

Androids force many restrictions on the user as well, even those with unnlockable bootloader. You can never run mainline Linux on them due to proprietary drivers depending on ancient kernels, which eventually leads to non-updatable electronic garbage. You can not change the operating system unless you have ancient Linux kernel under the hood.

> It is like saying "Ford is attacking fuel-efficient cars" because they are making F-150 truck.

But a general-purpose phone does not prevent you from using your phone and being secure. It only adds unlimited possibilities. Using your parallel, Ford is attacking the industry by creating car+truck, 2 in 1.

> Did you already accept as a fact that phones are not general-purpose computers? But they should be! Here is an example:...

Let me ask again: "why should they be?". There are different devices for different purposes. There is no rule saying that every device must be able to run mainline Linux. We just need enough Linux-running devices around.

Let me use food-based analogy this time: there are good, tasty and healthy restaurants out there. There are also McDonalds restaurants which are not. What I am hearing is equivalent of saying "McDonalds attacks healthy food" because they don't want to sell it. And your motivation? "Look, there are hamburger places which sell healthy food!"

Yes, there are many different food places just like there are many different phone types. There is no reason they should all be the same. Yes, I can agree that some are "healthier" / "more open" then others.

But one place not selling the stuff you like is not an "attack". Apple is not buying open-source phone manufacturers to close them, nor they are suing them out of existence. They have full rights to sell closed-system iPhones just like McDonalds has the full right to sell milkshakes with 110 g sugar per serving.

> Let me ask again: "why should they be?"

Why do people need freedom? Most of the time it's not needed until it's too late. Same here. Developers of proprietary software have unjust power over the users and often apply it for their own benefit against the will of users: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-impor....

> What I am hearing is equivalent of saying "McDonalds attacks healthy food" because they don't want to sell it.

I like your new analogy. You are essentially saying that selling bad food is fine as long as someone else produces good food. But it's not fine at all, it should be discouraged by laws or ethics. People get addicted to junk food and can't stop eating it, getting sick. This is exactly the same that is happening with software: https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2016/spring/you-are-what-you-ru....

> But one place not selling the stuff you like is not an "attack".

It is. It makes walled gardens a norm. It does not benefit users in any way, because everything can be achieved with open systems. Instead, it just forces users to obey the company, buy more staff and/or give all personal data. This is exactly what Apple is doing by the way.

> They have full rights to sell closed-system iPhones just like McDonalds has the full right to sell milkshakes with 110 g sugar per serving.

This is very harmful for the health and should be severely restricted, like cigarets. Same about proprietary software.

Unlocking the bootloader on your phone will make the phone fail the security check required for online banking and other apps. Therefore, it is not something that the general public can really take advantage of. It is great that Sony provides unlocking, but it will remain the purview of a small community of nerds like us, and it does nothing to improve accessibility to general computing for the masses.

You can still install 3rd party apps on Android without unlocking the phone - this should be enough for general public open computing, this gives you access to KODI, ZeroNet, I2P etc.., all the stuff that the article talks about.