In most cases there is a public API which is documented and a private API which is not.
In this specific case, users do not have the ability to use this instruction, so there is no reason to document it.
In this specific case, users do not have the ability to use this instruction, so there is no reason to document it.
You see it from an "they should inform us" POV, but there is also the "there is no guarantee it will be there" side.
We can debate if some private bank API's are publically accessible (you can still DDOS them). This shit, however, is inside my property, that I bought with my money, and it might end up being used by some malware. It is by definition accessible, and could be a security bomb.
How can any believer in free market defend companies secretly selling to comsumers the equivalent of a dangerous remote control mechanism embedded in their car?
Market only works if sellers aren't lying all the time, and in IT industry we made it the norm.
Your bank doesn't guarantee you that the lock model X45-b from company SUPERLOCK will protect your gold in their vault, even if that's what they use right now, and it's not specified in your contract with them, they just guarantee to protect your gold. This way they can change the lock without being in breach of contract.
Should we, as consumers, demand that Ford productize this robot and make it publicly available before we'll buy a Ford car?
Even websites often have an internal API and a different public-facing one.
This is how almost everything works in the digital age.