Using your argument, if I wrap my desktop PC in a cardboard box with holes for air inlet, air exhaust, and the power cable, and call it a heater, it's no longer a computer, despite having all the bits inside that a computer would have.

I'd much rather decide for myself what something "is", based on what it's actually made of, rather than what the manufacturer wants it to be.

It is commercially unviable to sell it to someone third as that, but if you managed that feat, it would be a bit strange if this person then came to you: "You sold me this electric heater, but I looked into it and it is warmed by an especially hot Intel CPU. So I decided it is a PC and despite you are being in the heater-selling-business I want you to not void my warranty when I reflash the firmware so I can install Windows XP to play Solitaire in long cold winter nights."

That's a different issue. I support the manufacturer saying "we won't guarantee our computer-as-heater will work if you change the software."

What I don't support is "we have have made it legally/physically/cryptographically impossible for you to use the thing you bought however you want to."

If I sell you a watermelon, I'll guarantee its freshness. I'll not guarantee its fitness as a boat anchor, but if you want to try that, go right ahead.

I'm not arguing that the intent of a thing is its identity - the manufacturers are, and if you buy into that then, well, you buy into that.

Just because I buy a device from Manufacturer X does not mean that said device is and only can be what the manufacturer intended. When I own a device, I have the freedom to tinker with that device, including making that device do something it was never intended to do. That is what I as a hacker love about computing machines: they are what I make them when I reprogram them.

But that doesn't mean that the manufacturer have to play ball and make it easy for you.

Also, when we as consumers chose the iPhone we at the same said that we don't care the slightest about being able to do what we want with our devices, from a hacker perspective the future isn't looking bright and that is our fault since we buy crap.

So in all honestly, no matter how bad it sucks. We deserve it.

Let's see what's in a computer: CPU, RAM, storage, input, output, software. What's in a smartphone? CPU, RAM, storage, input, output, software. Absent manufacturer lockdown or inane laws like the DMCA saying otherwise, they are literally, physically the same things in a different package.

Finally, what does it take for a thing to run Linux? 32-bit CPU, MMU, RAM, storage, input, output. A PS3, a phone, a router, a TiVo -- they all have all those things, and all of them can run Linux. They are all computers.

I disagree -- knowing something is a computer is knowing that it can be virtually infinitely repurposed. "Computer" is an entirely different kind of thing from anything else, regardless of the form it takes.

[quoted from another post] You guys are completely missing my point.

Don't mistake disagreement for obtuseness.

Also, this thread is too long already, but I wanted to mention the philosophies that seem to be driving our respective arguments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology

Smartphones and tablets are more powerful than any PC 15-20 years ago. Were those just appliances too?

I think you're trying to justify anti-competitive behavior by making a distinction where there isn't one.

Yes, there are a lot of exceptions - routers that you can install alternative OS's on, I've installed OpenWRT and DD-WRT myself. But that's beside the point. Just because linux run on arm and my router has a arm cpu doesn't mean I can run linux on it.

I bought a router and I got a router. Then I installed something else on it and I could just as well have been using it to control the curtains in my bedroom instead - and I have every right to do that. Just as the manufacturer has the right to secure their product and in effect lock me out of that ability.

Now, if I had bought a computer that would be in a completely different ball game. But now I bought a router and the manufacturer of that router has no obligation not trying make my life a living hell for even attempting to control my curtains with it.

really? You would have no objections to the router manufacturer trying to make your life a "living hell"?

For the most part manufacturers don't really care about people re purposing their devices for other goals unless it potentially leaves them legally liable for something (e.g a children's toy with small parts being repurposed as food).

People naturally re-purpose things all the time, for example using a bank note to do cocaine , an AOL CD as a coaster , a newspaper or deodorant to kill a wasp etc etc.

In fact a huge amount of human innovation comes from taking an existing thing and using it for something else, going back as far as the original hunters who took tree branches and used them to kill dinner.

The critical thing about computers is that their entire reason for existence is to be repurposed, a computer on it's own is useless.

What we in the software industry are in the business of doing is finding ways to repurpose computers and their entire appeal is that this is so easily done.

I would hate to live in a world where everything has one discreet purpose regardless of it's physical abilities, for example imagine having to purchase a separate TV for every channel you wish to watch.

My long-term concern is that this will no longer be possible.