4 ms·

> Consoles are a fairly direct comparison so the link is obvious. It's not obvious to me, please elaborate with reasoning. > Still, if you’re talking about ru

> Consoles are a fairly direct comparison so the link is obvious. It's not obvious to me, please elaborate with reasoning. > Still, if you’re talking about running arbitrary software then try loading “Uncharted: The Lost Legacy” on your PC or laptop. It’s not going to work, because you’re always limited to a subset of software on any platform PC or otherwise. This is due to Sony trying to push sales for PS4 by developing games exclusive to PS4. It's not the same thing at all. If Sony wanted to support Windows as a platform, they are free to do so. > There are several reason for this, but inability to install random software really is one of them. What are you basing this claim on?

Retric 7y ago
> Elaborate reasoning Mass market internet capable consumer devices, with significant compute hardware used to run a wide range of software. That’s a rather narrow list of device categories. > What are you basing this on? Malware for one thing. But, also things like driver compatibility, it’s simpler to develop software for well defined ecosystems which consoles provide. Many non exclusive ports don’t happen because it’s surprisingly expensive to port triple A games the PC. > It's not the same thing at all. If you want to nitpick that then fine, Red Dead Redemption is on PS4 and XBox box, but never made the PC jump. Porting AAA games to PC is surprisingly expensive, even if getting it to almost work is cheap. But, it’s vastly more widespread than that. Just try to load some of that realtime software running inside your car on a desktop it’s simply not designed for it.
- enriquto 7y ago
  > Not likening the reasoning does not remove the limitation. But it’s vastly more widespread than that. Just try to load some of that realtime software running inside your car on a desktop it’s simply not designed for it. This is a bogus argument for the case of the safety app. There is people who wrote a functioning program designed specifically for the iphone, that other people were already using on their phones. Then apple, a third party, removed the right of people to continue sharing a correctly functioning program on their own devices. The iphone is clearly designed to run arbitrary software and it already did in this case, before apple's callous interference.
  - Retric 7y ago
    I edited in Red Dead Redemption as a non exclusive (PC/XBox) example that’s not available for PC. As to the safety app, that’s the kind of thing I would like to play with. You may or may not actually be able to emulate that stuff on PC hardware, but not all of it, more critically however your not getting the license for it. PS: The removal of software is an argument about execution not the idea of a restrictive platform. The gatekeeper will prevent some software running on the platform that’s the basic idea, removing previously approved software is a separate question.
- computerex 7y ago
  > Mass market internet capable consumer devices, with significant compute hardware used to run a wide range of software. That’s a rather narrow list of device categories. I am not sure what you're trying to say. I asked you to elaborate on your claim: > Consoles are a fairly direct comparison so the link is obvious. Also > But, also things like driver compatibility, it’s simpler to develop software for well defined ecosystems which consoles provide. Many non exclusive ports don’t happen because it’s surprisingly expensive to port triple A games the PC. If you want to nitpick that then fine, Red Dead Redemption is on PS4 and XBox box, but never made the PC jump. Porting AAA games to PC is surprisingly expensive, even if getting it to almost work is cheap. But, it’s vastly more widespread than that. Just try to load some of that realtime software running inside your car on a desktop it’s simply not designed for it. Yes I agree that it can be expensive to port games to different platforms. Not sure how that goes to support your assertion that closed ecosystems are better. Platform makers want people to write stuff for their platform. It's the prerogative of the game/app makers to support the platforms based on their target demographic. All I am saying is that: > Limit what software can run and you vastly improve most people’s experience. Freedom is not just about letting people do anything, it’s also a question of what contracts they can enter. This doesn't make sense, and nothing you have thus far stated helps to further your argument. Apple has incentives outside the user experience to have a tight hold on the iPhone ecosystem. Were they to do the same thing to the Mac, they'd face a strong backlash. No platform maker wants to deny people access to their platform willy nilly.
  - Retric 7y ago
    >> That’s a rather narrow list of device categories. > I am not sure what you're trying to say. Try listing out what fits that description. (Consoles, tablets, pc’s, and...). Then add a checkbox near the so called open platforms. My point is it’s a short list including PC’s, tablets/cellphones, consoles, and not much else. Smart TV’s are another possibility, though these tend to be even less open. Anyway, it’s not that it costs money, it’s that it costs more money to make the port. Consoles take a significant cut of every sale and it’s often not worth it to port to windows due to the bugs associated with arbitrary code running on a users machine. TLDR: Windows open nature results in more bugs and thus a worse user experience. It’s an inherent issue with open platforms relating to increased surface area for bugs to occur.

Retric 7y ago

> Elaborate reasoning Mass market internet capable consumer devices, with significant compute hardware used to run a wide range of software. That’s a rather narrow list of device categories. > What are you basing this on? Malware for one thing. But, also things like driver compatibility, it’s simpler to develop software for well defined ecosystems which consoles provide. Many non exclusive ports don’t happen because it’s surprisingly expensive to port triple A games the PC. > It's not the same thing at all. If you want to nitpick that then fine, Red Dead Redemption is on PS4 and XBox box, but never made the PC jump. Porting AAA games to PC is surprisingly expensive, even if getting it to almost work is cheap. But, it’s vastly more widespread than that. Just try to load some of that realtime software running inside your car on a desktop it’s simply not designed for it.

enriquto 7y ago
> Not likening the reasoning does not remove the limitation. But it’s vastly more widespread than that. Just try to load some of that realtime software running inside your car on a desktop it’s simply not designed for it. This is a bogus argument for the case of the safety app. There is people who wrote a functioning program designed specifically for the iphone, that other people were already using on their phones. Then apple, a third party, removed the right of people to continue sharing a correctly functioning program on their own devices. The iphone is clearly designed to run arbitrary software and it already did in this case, before apple's callous interference.
- Retric 7y ago
  I edited in Red Dead Redemption as a non exclusive (PC/XBox) example that’s not available for PC. As to the safety app, that’s the kind of thing I would like to play with. You may or may not actually be able to emulate that stuff on PC hardware, but not all of it, more critically however your not getting the license for it. PS: The removal of software is an argument about execution not the idea of a restrictive platform. The gatekeeper will prevent some software running on the platform that’s the basic idea, removing previously approved software is a separate question.
computerex 7y ago
> Mass market internet capable consumer devices, with significant compute hardware used to run a wide range of software. That’s a rather narrow list of device categories. I am not sure what you're trying to say. I asked you to elaborate on your claim: > Consoles are a fairly direct comparison so the link is obvious. Also > But, also things like driver compatibility, it’s simpler to develop software for well defined ecosystems which consoles provide. Many non exclusive ports don’t happen because it’s surprisingly expensive to port triple A games the PC. If you want to nitpick that then fine, Red Dead Redemption is on PS4 and XBox box, but never made the PC jump. Porting AAA games to PC is surprisingly expensive, even if getting it to almost work is cheap. But, it’s vastly more widespread than that. Just try to load some of that realtime software running inside your car on a desktop it’s simply not designed for it. Yes I agree that it can be expensive to port games to different platforms. Not sure how that goes to support your assertion that closed ecosystems are better. Platform makers want people to write stuff for their platform. It's the prerogative of the game/app makers to support the platforms based on their target demographic. All I am saying is that: > Limit what software can run and you vastly improve most people’s experience. Freedom is not just about letting people do anything, it’s also a question of what contracts they can enter. This doesn't make sense, and nothing you have thus far stated helps to further your argument. Apple has incentives outside the user experience to have a tight hold on the iPhone ecosystem. Were they to do the same thing to the Mac, they'd face a strong backlash. No platform maker wants to deny people access to their platform willy nilly.
- Retric 7y ago
  >> That’s a rather narrow list of device categories. > I am not sure what you're trying to say. Try listing out what fits that description. (Consoles, tablets, pc’s, and...). Then add a checkbox near the so called open platforms. My point is it’s a short list including PC’s, tablets/cellphones, consoles, and not much else. Smart TV’s are another possibility, though these tend to be even less open. Anyway, it’s not that it costs money, it’s that it costs more money to make the port. Consoles take a significant cut of every sale and it’s often not worth it to port to windows due to the bugs associated with arbitrary code running on a users machine. TLDR: Windows open nature results in more bugs and thus a worse user experience. It’s an inherent issue with open platforms relating to increased surface area for bugs to occur.