I don’t see the value in hypotheticals like that. If the claim is that a computer is not really a computer unless every user can do any low level operations they want, is it also true that a car is not really a car unless every user can do any low level operations they want?
Manufacturers are taking away right to repair too! I think you picked a bad example. Back in the 60s you absolutely could change every low level component on a car.
Sure. But a taxi is a car yet it doesn't quite take up the same mental spots. People will say they came by taxi instead of by car.
People won't say they don't see the value in selfdriving capabilities or repairability because they can just get a taxi.
Etc
Our argument shouldn't be about the device's capabilities, but about its ownership. And increasingly, as this enshittification progresses, the person buying the device is becoming less and less its owner.
Well it's still a vehicle but once something sufficiently deviates in form or function or the like it will no longer primarily be called that. People usually say they took a taxi for example rather saying they came by car even when every taxi is a car. Once that happens they start taking up different mental spots and comparisons between them start to make less and less sense. (saying you don't see the value of self driving capabilities because you can just get a taxi for example.)
This isn’t relevant. Taxis are still cars and that’s something the vast majority of people would agree with. The fact that they have a more specific name doesn’t change anything.
A Bungalow is still a house. A skyscraper is still a building. A panini is still a sandwich. A taxi is still a car.
What if it only drives along select predetermined monetised routes?