Who is free software for?

Provocative title aside, Tante's derived point about free software being optimized for those who are comfortable for hackers is astute. It's definitely a big factor as to why you don't see folks in BestBuy or Target asking clerks, "does that come with Linux pre-installed"? Part of the experience is the expectation that folks will and can "do it themselves". Organizations have tried to combat this^[1] but cultural and corporate expectations of computing in the United States lean against things that allow for anti-degradability, repair and autonomy — this is the country of maximal convenience and minimal engagement, after all, if you can afford it. Folks might want to point out that we've recently reached a point where all of the states have introduced bills for right to repair. The word "introduced" is important here, as it's hopeful (but personally unlikely) to this become a federal mandate once enough states go for it. This is in part of a push to reduce the economic burden of constant production and will end up creating a market where companies can forcefully sell their parts with only OEM blessings. Apple's an expert in this kind of work.

In the case of software, it's less important. Because of the reforming of the Web browser into the now-fabled "omni operating system layer", the underlying operating system seems to matter less and less to "casual" users. They can open up their preferred-by-suggestion browser, Google Chrome, and get to their places like Facebook, Reddit, or what have you. What does software freedom matter to people who just want to connect with family, watch a movie or play video games?

Ironically, a lot. In the same way that the average American isn't versed in the Constitution that (kinda) governs our lands and a bit more understand (recently) how and where the people who make up our governing bodies move, folks wouldn't know that it's more important to keep your hardware as long as possible to offset the impact of its production^[2]. That becomes difficult as some folks note how even the most expensive and revered companies forcibly encourages device replacement. This makes them more money in the long term instead of investing in methods that can expand device life from the perspective of the device owner^[3]. In the case of software, we can see that we've entered the golden era of forced upgrades and non-backward compatibility as a service.

Open source developers have a chance, especially if they develop for the expensive and American-centric Apple ecosystem, to build escape hatches for their software such that folks aren't tied aggressively to the Apple walled garden. There's little incentive to do so for the same reason that folks don't ask questions when they go into Target: it's "easier" to go with the script. Apple doesn't make it terribly easy to use their services outside of their ecosystem, so the fault isn't entirely in the hands of developers: once again, it's the means of production.