If they require your PC to be tinkerable/repairable; higher end devices will come with a "toolbox loaded with high quality tools to ease and improve the experience", "for no additional charge", as a selling point.
Why is that a thing to begin with? What happens if a PC doesn't have it? It's not like Windows would refuse to run on it.
DRM is fundamentally an attempt to rewrite reality, or at least the computing aspects of it, in ways that are not possible to do with laws of physics in general. An idealized DRM setup establishes a faux reality, a virtual environment running on top of reality, in which bits have extra rules to it - codifying the weaker attempt of what IP regulations are doing to information in general, i.e. establishing a faux legal reality, in which bits carry colour, and with it restrictions and consequences.
The worst part is, the forces that push us to this direction are shielded in plausible deniability and good intentions, as DRM and cybersecurity are, in the limit, the same thing, so the unhindered capitalism control freaks get to hide behind fear of cyber criminals, while secretly using tools of protection against us.
Neither in politics nor in corporate announcements was there ever a shortage of "good reasons". People are creative when it is about power and/or money.
Huh? They are the opposite - someone from another country can remotely control my phone/computer/car. Seems like a trojan
This is direct in case of media companies; for banks, you may be a "valued customer", but your phone is considered a threat actor; their excuse is that your phone (or you) could be pwnd. And then, in general, service providers see potential competitors as threat actors, too.
Security tech is, by its very nature, a tool of control. Whether that's good or bad for you, depends on who's in control.
Plus, it doesn't protect you from Microsoft making Windows incompatible with your specific system "by accident" (See Dr.DOS incident), or sue you to oblivion by a very small clause in their licenses.
> In September 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that "the sale of a computer equipped with pre-installed software does not in itself constitute an unfair commercial practice within the meaning of Directive 2005/29 when such an offer is not contrary to the requirements of professional diligence and does not distort the economic behaviour of [purchasers]." The Court also ruled that Directive 2005/29 does not require OEMs to include a separate price for an operating system license.
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_of_Microsoft_Windows
Really? That is the barrier?! How much control do you think you have on "Microsoft PC certification" standards?