It would be a good thing yes.
But it's still different. Historically, you could always buy a game from brick and mortar store not owned by Nintendo or Sony. That was never possible with the iPhone.
Not sure how it is with digital stores now, but I wouldn't be surprised if they followed Apple's "lead" in that vendor lock-in department as well.

Still, console makers would argue that they sell consoles at loss and they make profit with the games. Apple makes a huge profit on phones. It appears the EU DMA applies to general-purpose computing devices, and therefore smartphone/computers but not gaming consoles. You don't use your gaming console to install your bank's application, for instance. But I guess if the video game console market was becoming as anti-competitive as Apple, they could be regulated in the future as well.

Imagine if Toyota tried to charge 5% fee on all gas purchases not even sold by Toyota.

Oh I never denied that there are laptops with better touchpads/keyboards/displays than others. But you didn't mention any of those points in your original post, just "feel" and "plasticky".
Glass was just an example that a material can look/feel premium while be technically inferior. Up to a point we could say the same about metal. It's heavier than plastic so plastic laptops can be better even if they "feel" cheaper. My Thinkpad T is in plastic and I don't see anything wrong with that.

Oh, no problem with people who want their computer to look good. Just don't call it "build quality" as if it had anything to do with the quality of the product or it's ability to last. Call it "look and feel". And admit that sometimes inferior products from a durability perspective can look or feel better. Glass back on phones is a perfect example of this. Plastic would be superior from a technical perspective, but "look and feel" people and reviewers forced us to have a weaker material because it looks and feels more expensive.

I had a plastic Dell (Inspiron something several years ago) and we kept it for something like 7 years before replacing it by a newer laptop. Never cracked. Sounds like your problem is more that your users don't take care of the laptops because they are not theirs. In my field we often use rugged laptops to use in shops, maybe that's what you need as well.
What people call "build quality" is more often about looks and feel than actual strength anyways. Glass back on phones is a good example of this. A plastic laptop likely has better survivability to drops compared to metal ones, because they are lighter (less dense) and plastic absorbs shock instead of transmitting it to components.

Who care if it "feels" cheap? It's a laptop, not a status symbol. What matters is how it performs. A 100% glass laptop would not feel cheap but would be total crap.
Nothing wrong with plastic laptop. I never replaced a laptop because the plastic didn't last. Not once have I told myself, if I bought a metal laptop it would have lasted twice as long as this one I'm now forced to replace.

Well SMS/RCS doesn't work with the phone number on my business card either because it's an office landline/voip. So it's no better than the other application you criticize as not being universal enough.

I rather not have the carrier in control, and not have a protocol depending on a phone number which I don't own, rather than have something that will work the 0.001% of the time where my Internet is too congested to send a simple message. Also I don't think RCS works any better as it uses the data connection, unlike SMS.
SMS has many flaws, including not receiving the message if you swapped your SIM card when traveling to another country. The carrier may or may not send you the message when you come back.

That's my point we pretty much never "need" SMS. RCS was not even worth developing.

That still brings the question which problem is RCS trying to solve? And why do we want carriers to have control on text messages sent between two people?
SMS/MMS and RCS all suck. Less than single-platform solutions like iMessage, but still suck as long as carriers have control on it (I can't just create my own RCS server and use it to communicate with my contacts) and is based on a phone number (again, which is region-locked and controlled by the carrier).

Good messaging solutions work on any internet-connected devices (especially on PCs without a cellular connectivity (and no, piggy backing on a phone to send/receive the message doesn't count)). There are plenty to chose from. Just avoid cell phone-only solutions.

Yes, understood, but still not profitable as an overall system. Your estimates all seem off by a couple orders of magnitude (think if we listened to you, aluminum or electricity price could increase by a factor of 10, 100 or 1000).

You don't seem to realize a $500 water heater will reach room temperature in only 2-4 days. And I think it's more like 10 kWh for a 60 gallons water heater.
Keeping it hot for years would require very expensive insulation.

That's the thing. We don't "need" to grow that much crops in California. We CHOOSE to empty the Colorado and Rio Grande for agriculture. There could be other ways (producing food in other regions) instead.

Belgium and California are already net food exporters.

The world doesn't. Still plenty of unused fresh water in places like Russia and Canada flowing into the ocean.

On my Debian stable:

rmmod: ERROR: Module algif_aead is not currently loaded

Does it means I'm not affected?

Debian's web site say it's fixed in a newer kernel release:
https://security-tracker.debia...

Having an aluminium plant working only in the summer is not going to be profitable. Having batteries with only 1 charge cycle per year would be even worse.
Unless Belgium itself has water shortages, desalinating seawater in Belgium is not a good idea. You are not going to move that water to Saudi Arabia it would be more expensive than desalinating over there. The world doesn't have a fresh water shortage. We only have local shortages in some places and it turns out it's often cheaper to desalinate seawater in those places compared to importing water from remote areas with surpluses (think Russia and Canada).

Some people, including Trump, are working very hard to push that day as far as possible.

I know that, but they all add to the cost. That's great for all 4 people who wants a built-in proprietary USB-C SSD, but I personally prefer a cheaper laptop with 6 fixed ports rather than 4 modular ones. Each of these module is expensive, and the bare laptop already is (the possibility to get your own RAM and SSD is nice to keep costs down though).
Who is seriously going to take out the USB-C module and lose the ability to charge the laptop anyways?

I don't need to carry dongles with my T14 either because I have 6 useful ports already on it.
Am I using all 6 ports at the same time when on the go? Of course not. But I am sometimes using my 2 USB-A, I am sometimes using Ethernet, and sometimes using HDMI. Not sure I ever used the second USB-C port but I guess it's the future proof one.

I never missed a wireless mouse dongle garage, DP. I must have used micro SD a couple times, and I used a dongle for that I admit, but never on the go (the dongle stays in my drawer, and has been compatible with many different laptops from different brands).

If I had a framework laptop with only 4 ports, I would need to carry some extra modules or dongles. Most likely I would be carrying a $30 multifunction USB-C hub. But I glad I don't have to.

Well of course the energy (usually in kWh) is an important measure, cost, volume and weight all matter as well. You can have a 1MWh NMC or LFP battery but it's not going to fit and would be too expensive for your EV.
So the fact that they can make a real car with 1000 km range and 7-minute charging would be impressive, if it were true. The first problem is the chinese standard. 1000 km on the chinese standard means something like 850 km WLTP or 600 km EPA, which in the end is more like 500 km in the real world.

While I get that it's cool to be able to chose if you want USB-C or HDMI with swappable modules, I don't think it's a good idea. For the same price and volume usage they could have included much more ports if they were not modules. For example my Lenovo T14 has 2x USB-C, Ethernet, HDMI and 2x USB-A, for a total of 6 ports (not counting 3.5mm audio which the framework also have). And I consider they are all useful.
Having 4 modules is more like 3 anyways, because you need to pick at least one USB-C for charging. So that leaves you 3 modular options. Most users would be better with 5 fixed ports, and 1 module instead of 4 modules.
The Ethernet as a module means it's internally a USB to Ethernet adapter. Having a fixed (non removable) PCIe Ethernet would be cheaper and maybe more reliable (less connections).
And it's not as if those modules were standards across manufacturers. So if I am going to carry extra dongles in my suitcase, i'd rather have something like an external $30 USB-C hub with a couple ports on it (say HDMI, USB-A, USB-C is quite common) rather than a $30 module with a single port. From what I see those modules may be used on any laptop with a USB-C port, however, their mechanical envelope likely means it's blocking the next 1-2 ports because they are very wide. A regular USB-C hub is much more convenient because it comes with a small flexible cable that doesn't block other ports when it's connected.

Just give me a regular laptop with good connectivity, an easy to open case for repair (visible screws), and upgradable RAM/SSD/wifi, and easy to replace battery. That would already be a good start.