3 ms·

>You wouldn't call Nintendo a monopolist because they dictate the rules of the Switch, would you? It's not monopolistic, but it's another kind of problem. Lock

>You wouldn't call Nintendo a monopolist because they dictate the rules of the Switch, would you? It's not monopolistic, but it's another kind of problem. Locked down ecosystems and companies that actively work to stop any kind of unauthorized access to their locked down systems are stifling innovation and creativity to a degree in exchange for a somewhat false sense of security and the larger motive of control and continuous profit off their products. Whether this is good or bad sort of depends on what you value more. It also does push back a certain type of customer, whether companies want these customers or not is a different story but, personally I would never buy an apple product because of the way their ecosystem is. As for the switch, I was pretty unexcited about it until I seen the videos of a working linux install on it, my excitement lessened when I read Nintendo intended to release hardware and software updates to fix the exploits that allowed that. But this is just me, though I can't be the only one that feels this way, and again there's a good chance neither Apple nor Nintendo would want my business anyway.

Spivak 8y ago
I don't necessarily see a problem with locked down devices because if I have a right to control what runs on my computer, then so does Apple or Nintendo on theirs. One might counter, saying something like "but you 'own' your iPhone, you should be able to do whatever you want with it." But I think such an argument is more to do with not having a common word to describe this kind of transaction -- we understand things like leasing and renting but we still describe 'buying' managed devices with the same terminology that we do a toaster. IT people get close to this model with managed on-prem appliances but it's not quite the same. The same problem exists with copyrighted works because when you buy a DVD you don't own the movie, you own a single transferrable non-commercial personal-use license losely attached to the physical medium. We would do well to make these business relationships more explicit and better defined but I wouldn't expect the relationships themselves to change.

Spivak 8y ago

I don't necessarily see a problem with locked down devices because if I have a right to control what runs on my computer, then so does Apple or Nintendo on theirs. One might counter, saying something like "but you 'own' your iPhone, you should be able to do whatever you want with it." But I think such an argument is more to do with not having a common word to describe this kind of transaction -- we understand things like leasing and renting but we still describe 'buying' managed devices with the same terminology that we do a toaster. IT people get close to this model with managed on-prem appliances but it's not quite the same. The same problem exists with copyrighted works because when you buy a DVD you don't own the movie, you own a single transferrable non-commercial personal-use license losely attached to the physical medium. We would do well to make these business relationships more explicit and better defined but I wouldn't expect the relationships themselves to change.