5 ms·

The "why" is because the creator of the OS can lock down the system to only allow apps from their own marketplace. The "why is this not being discussed as an a

The "why" is because the creator of the OS can lock down the system to only allow apps from their own marketplace. The "why is this not being discussed as an anti-trust violation like Microsoft was hit with" is because the US government of the last 10-15 years doesn't have the same viewpoints on anti-trust that they did 20+ years ago.

opo 6y ago
>...the US government of the last 10-15 years doesn't have the same viewpoints on anti-trust that they did 20+ years ago. The Nintendo NES came out in 1983. Didn't they have control of all apps allowed to run on their machine? They weren't charged with anti-trust violations.
- nick_kline 6y ago
  They weren't the only gaming system. There are 2 phone ecosystems today and that's the central device in most people's lives, the phone is a bigger deal.
  - kgwgk 6y ago
    How many gaming systems existed in the late eighties? What was Nintendo’s market share?
  - iso1631 6y ago
    Sega vs Nintendo, which shortly after Sony enterred the game became Nintendo vs Sony, then Sony vs Microsoft Duopolies seem to be a natural state
- AlexandrB 6y ago
  This is actually a really interesting parallel. Like Apple/Google, Nintendo also became successful in part by tightly regulating their console in response to a quality problem previously caused by more open platforms[1]. The comparison breaks down somewhat though when you consider the size of the NES market (61.91 million units sold) vs. smartphones (1 billion+ sold). Nintendo, and the whole gaming market, may have just been too small for the justice department to pursue anti-trust charges. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Entertainment_System#Release https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Entertainment_System#...
  - kelnos 6y ago
    That's an interesting comparison to make, since ultimately Nintendo lost their court case regarding their control over who's allowed to create and publish NES games.
- matheusmoreira 6y ago
  > The Nintendo NES came out in 1983. Didn't they have control of all apps allowed to run on their machine? They didn't. The security of the consoles from that era was based on trademarks. The hardware would refuse to execute software unless it could find the manufacturer's name at some predefined memory location. Since these were trademarks, game companies had to obtain permission in order to use them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade The judges ruled that people had every right to reverse engineer existing games and produce compatible software for those consoles regardless of the manufacturer's wishes. The trademark violations were the manufacturer's fault since they made it necessary for games to work. The world was a much better place before the DMCA.
kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
The US government didn't go after MS over IE bundling. That was the EU. The US targeted them over anti-competitive contracts forcing manufacturers to pay for licenses on systems without a MS OS installed.
- btilly 6y ago
  Nope. The US government went after MS multiple times. Most were over anti-competitive contracts. But the list includes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor.... Which definitely did go after MS over bundling IE. The penalties that Microsoft suffered under from the USA were sufficiently weak that they considered it a cost of doing business. It was only the much larger EU penalties that caused them to change course. But the USA definitely went after them for bundling IE.
awa 6y ago
The why is because, without a lock down app store windows machines were known to be an easy target for viruses, malwares and fake software. Advanced users can still jailbreak and install other apps. Unfortunately, the vetting process has issues and I think even though the quality will improve over time due to more/better usage of ML/AI techniques but that will make the process more opaque.
- swiley 6y ago
  The problem is that it heavily discourages community maintained software. Most smartphone apps seem like a way for a bank to wedge themselves between you and what you want to do.

opo 6y ago

>...the US government of the last 10-15 years doesn't have the same viewpoints on anti-trust that they did 20+ years ago. The Nintendo NES came out in 1983. Didn't they have control of all apps allowed to run on their machine? They weren't charged with anti-trust violations.

nick_kline 6y ago
They weren't the only gaming system. There are 2 phone ecosystems today and that's the central device in most people's lives, the phone is a bigger deal.
- kgwgk 6y ago
  How many gaming systems existed in the late eighties? What was Nintendo’s market share?
- iso1631 6y ago
  Sega vs Nintendo, which shortly after Sony enterred the game became Nintendo vs Sony, then Sony vs Microsoft Duopolies seem to be a natural state
AlexandrB 6y ago
This is actually a really interesting parallel. Like Apple/Google, Nintendo also became successful in part by tightly regulating their console in response to a quality problem previously caused by more open platforms[1]. The comparison breaks down somewhat though when you consider the size of the NES market (61.91 million units sold) vs. smartphones (1 billion+ sold). Nintendo, and the whole gaming market, may have just been too small for the justice department to pursue anti-trust charges. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Entertainment_System#Release https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Entertainment_System#...
- kelnos 6y ago
  That's an interesting comparison to make, since ultimately Nintendo lost their court case regarding their control over who's allowed to create and publish NES games.
matheusmoreira 6y ago
> The Nintendo NES came out in 1983. Didn't they have control of all apps allowed to run on their machine? They didn't. The security of the consoles from that era was based on trademarks. The hardware would refuse to execute software unless it could find the manufacturer's name at some predefined memory location. Since these were trademarks, game companies had to obtain permission in order to use them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade The judges ruled that people had every right to reverse engineer existing games and produce compatible software for those consoles regardless of the manufacturer's wishes. The trademark violations were the manufacturer's fault since they made it necessary for games to work. The world was a much better place before the DMCA.

kevin_thibedeau 6y ago

The US government didn't go after MS over IE bundling. That was the EU. The US targeted them over anti-competitive contracts forcing manufacturers to pay for licenses on systems without a MS OS installed.

btilly 6y ago
Nope. The US government went after MS multiple times. Most were over anti-competitive contracts. But the list includes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor.... Which definitely did go after MS over bundling IE. The penalties that Microsoft suffered under from the USA were sufficiently weak that they considered it a cost of doing business. It was only the much larger EU penalties that caused them to change course. But the USA definitely went after them for bundling IE.

awa 6y ago

The why is because, without a lock down app store windows machines were known to be an easy target for viruses, malwares and fake software. Advanced users can still jailbreak and install other apps. Unfortunately, the vetting process has issues and I think even though the quality will improve over time due to more/better usage of ML/AI techniques but that will make the process more opaque.

swiley 6y ago
The problem is that it heavily discourages community maintained software. Most smartphone apps seem like a way for a bank to wedge themselves between you and what you want to do.