I don't own a smartphone/any Apple/Google products, or Dell/HP machines for that matter (not surprising to me that they're bad). My frame of reference is typical PCs, which aren't in the habit of applying vendor lockin with regards to what peripherals you can use - and other SBCs.
I don't understand the premise that not applying vendor lockin to a camera module would make SBCs unreasonably expensive. Competing SBCs are more open, many predate the rpi and despite the fact that they probably sell fewer units than the rpi (due to less brand exposure, not cloning), and thus possess lower economies of scale, I've never seen one which costs "£500".
>Don't get me started on DRM. Look I know you think that everything should be free, but that means I can't earn a living.
I think this is clearly untrue from the success of other, more open SBCs.
>Teaching kids that copy/pasting someone's work, making a halfarsed cheap copy and selling it for loads of profit, with no support is a good moral choice, you might want to re-asses your world view.
But I never claimed that kids should be taught that. What I do claim is that kids should not be taught that it's ethical or normal/acceptable to try and use malicious functionality to institute vendor lockin, creating an artificial monopoly in compatible peripherals, because it isn't.
Moreover, it appears this DRM has had a chilling effect on third-party cameras with novel functionality (i.e., not competing for the same applications as the official camera), according to a comment posted above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20261787
So there's real evidence of harm done by this.
>Yes, removing ownership from the people is exceptionally bad. The trend towards the "sharing" economy undermines workers rights to the point that we are entering digital feudalism. But that is another topic.
It isn't another topic. There is a systemic trend of hardware vendors using firmware to advance and prioritise their own interests over those of the device owner, essentially using technological measures to undermine the first sale doctrine. Of course, this isn't illegal, though it ought to be.