> My argument is that they are not. Then I’d suggest you come up with a different term to use, because the phrase ‘general purpose computer’ has been in use si

> My argument is that they are not. Then I’d suggest you come up with a different term to use, because the phrase ‘general purpose computer’ has been in use since at least the 1940s as far as I know, and it’s definition is quite different from yours. I think the meaning you’re trying to use is that a PlayStation only runs PlayStation games/apps, that only Sony gets to decide what PlayStation games/apps are released, and that the users know this when they buy one? Therefore customers know that they can’t run arbitrary software on it when they purchase one? Because that’s exactly true for the Apple App Store as well. Customers are well aware of the limitations of the system, and it is used by Apple as a differentiating factor in their marketing. > Even though I still stand by my support for free-form app distribution, I understand that from a consumer perspective, Apple's current practices may not tip the scale between good and bad. But such channels are already open to you as both a developer and a customer. Furthermore, those channels have a majority market share. Why is it necessary for all platforms to suit your preferences? > But at the very least, I hope Apple can (eventually) improvement their one-size-fits-all pricing model and payment methods. I would agree. It is something they have already been improving over time though. I’ve had plenty of run ins with App Store rules myself, and I hope they continue to improve. But I also really hope the App Store is something they keep putting effort into, because even with the cut, it’s an absurdly valuable sales channel. I personally quite grateful that Apple have collected such a large amount of high spending customers for me to market to.