Regarding his argument against paid toilets: can’t this be said about any other basic neccesity? I.e. don’t pay for food, because some people can’t afford it - so food should be free.
The other (perhaps more compelling) argument is that Apple is only able to invest this level of security in its products because of its spectacular profits, which would likely be much lower if iOS were open source.
That's basically the gist of it.
EDIT: To whoeever downvoted this, I'm just relaying the argument.
Apple’s business model also aligns with user privacy (so far).
It’s also worth considering Apple’s CEO personally values privacy because he had to keep his sexuality a secret his entire life until he reached such a prominent position he felt safe to speak out.
I agree that the strongest evidence is the source code, compiler code, and electronics schematics. However, there are other forms of evidence.
It indicates that Apple software is secure, it doesn't indicate that it is secure because it is closed-source. It might be even more secure if it were open source, because then many more people would be looking for vulnerabilities in it.
I think Apple’s products would be more secure if they were more open. I appreciate that the core is open (Darwin, WebKit, Swift, LLVM).
All philosophies are inconsistent?
> (See the paradox of closed source microwaves)
That's not a paradox. Binary blobs are okay if, and only if, there is no way to update them anyway. This means there is no way for the copyright holder of the software to force a user to cede their software freedom, so the point is moot.
> software should be libre because libre software provides the most value to the most people due to the 0 marginal cost of software
Software should be libre because it allows users to not be beholden to anything but their own interests. Value and cost are very secondary considerations.
> even if it's less profitable to the creators
That's not a criterium.
> due to the security benefits of closed platforms
Citation very much needed.
> Stallman formed his views when he was working at MIT, with his material support from donations
No. He was working, at MIT, you just stated that.
> The economics of his philosophy are tainted by that foundational flaw.
I think you might want to get better acquainted with "his philosophy", the economics of it, before diving head first into an argument based on nothing but ad-hoc analysis of shaky assertions.
The only difference between universal food and universal toilets seems to be the cost - i.e. it would be much more affordable for government to supply free toilets than free food for everyone. In this view his argument makes sense - both the need to eat and the need to pee when in public are fundamental, so if we can take care of at least one of them (toilets), then it's still better than nothing.
> I have concluded that the least we can do, to eliminate pay toilets, is to avoid giving them money. Instead of paying them, I go to great lengths to find some other toilet.
> Please join me in rejecting pay toilets firmly.