3 ms·

> That's a misleading question, because on other platforms you can choose to avoid the store. That's definitely not true. You cannot run unsigned code on most

by baddox 6y ago

> That's a misleading question, because on other platforms you can choose to avoid the store. That's definitely not true. You cannot run unsigned code on most video game consoles. And for PC game marketplaces, those platforms still have market power. Surely there's a big difference between being banned from Steam and being banned from the Discord Store.

dwild 6y ago
> That's definitely not true. You cannot run unsigned code on most video game consoles. And I'm pretty sure many people would be quite against this practice and believe this is an harmful monopolistic practice. The thing is though, no one had the balls and/or the cash to defends this like Epic does right now against Apple. Let's hope this will bring a more open future on video game consoles too.
- baddox 6y ago
  Most people I've seen commenting on this Epic vs. Apple debate seem to think that it's okay on game consoles but not okay on iPhones, which is just preposterous. At least you're consistent. But what about e-readers, GPS devices, car entertainment systems, etc.? Should all Turing-complete computing devices be forced to provide a way for the owner to run unsigned code?
  - ayoisaiah 6y ago
    The difference is that those other devices have a specific use. Smartphones are general purpose devices, so it's not the same at all
    - baddox 6y ago
      That's a bizarre argument. It seems to imply that Apple could avoid these allegations by either increasing or decreasing the restrictions they place on third-party developers.
      - radegast 6y ago
        seeing you pop up on almost every single comment critizicing apple is the real bizzare thing here. Astroturfing much?
    - ayoisaiah 6y ago
      How does it imply that? Which of those devices you mentioned (e-readers, GPS devices, car entertainment systems) have a store for downloading apps? If they do, then yes I would like to be able to put whatever I want on there without the approval of some corporation.
    - misnome 6y ago
      Isn't that specific use mostly artificial by restricting your ability to install things though? If it's a CPU in a box, then it's purely a matter of what software you are allowed to install on it, right?
  - PeterisP 6y ago
    IMHO that would be a really good thing. We are not there yet, but that seems like a laudable goal to me.
grishka 6y ago
Video game consoles are specialized hardware. They do one thing and they do it well. It's kind of understandable that these companies want to review anything released for those. They want to ensure that games are of high quality so as to not hurt the reputation of the platform itself. They want games to help sell consoles. And that's how video game consoles always worked. iPhones, on the other hand, are not specialized. They're general-purpose devices at this point — both by design and by how Apple markets them. The problem is, both developers and users see the app store and its policies as a nuisance.
- baddox 6y ago
  > They want to ensure that games are of high quality so as to not hurt the reputation of the platform itself. They want games to help sell consoles. And that's how video game consoles always worked. And my argument is that an overall better (according to each individual buyer's preference) software experience is a major (perhaps the single largest) differentiator of iPhones over competing smartphones. This has always been a major part of Apple's marketing and indeed is the primary reason I use an iPhone. Yes, on the iPhone it's "games and other apps" instead of just games, but I don't see that being a major difference (particularly since game consoles can serve other purposes too, like media consumption and home automation). My argument is that iPhones are and have always been essentially "the game console of smartphones" or "the appliance of smartphones." In fact, that type of description is often used both pejoratively by iPhone haters and lovingly by iPhone fans. They're simply not made for or marketed to people who want a general-purpose Unix PC with a cell phone antenna built in, even though technically they are essentially that (note, of course, that iPhones and game consoles are technically general purpose computers, but that's not really relevant). > They're general-purpose devices at this point — both by design and by how Apple markets them. The problem is, both developers and users see the app store and its policies as a nuisance. I strongly disagree with your impression here. My impression has been that complaints about App Store rules have overwhelmingly come from a small number of extremely large developers (unsurprisingly, developers that are big enough that they want to make a play to shift some of Apple's market power toward themselves). I don't see iPhone owners complaining about App Store rules, and I suspect one reason is that anyone who values being able to sideload any software on their smartphone has many very nice Android options.

by baddox 6y ago

dwild 6y ago

> That's definitely not true. You cannot run unsigned code on most video game consoles. And I'm pretty sure many people would be quite against this practice and believe this is an harmful monopolistic practice. The thing is though, no one had the balls and/or the cash to defends this like Epic does right now against Apple. Let's hope this will bring a more open future on video game consoles too.

baddox 6y ago
Most people I've seen commenting on this Epic vs. Apple debate seem to think that it's okay on game consoles but not okay on iPhones, which is just preposterous. At least you're consistent. But what about e-readers, GPS devices, car entertainment systems, etc.? Should all Turing-complete computing devices be forced to provide a way for the owner to run unsigned code?
- ayoisaiah 6y ago
  The difference is that those other devices have a specific use. Smartphones are general purpose devices, so it's not the same at all
  - baddox 6y ago
    That's a bizarre argument. It seems to imply that Apple could avoid these allegations by either increasing or decreasing the restrictions they place on third-party developers.
    - radegast 6y ago
      seeing you pop up on almost every single comment critizicing apple is the real bizzare thing here. Astroturfing much?
  - ayoisaiah 6y ago
    How does it imply that? Which of those devices you mentioned (e-readers, GPS devices, car entertainment systems) have a store for downloading apps? If they do, then yes I would like to be able to put whatever I want on there without the approval of some corporation.
  - misnome 6y ago
    Isn't that specific use mostly artificial by restricting your ability to install things though? If it's a CPU in a box, then it's purely a matter of what software you are allowed to install on it, right?
- PeterisP 6y ago
  IMHO that would be a really good thing. We are not there yet, but that seems like a laudable goal to me.

grishka 6y ago

Video game consoles are specialized hardware. They do one thing and they do it well. It's kind of understandable that these companies want to review anything released for those. They want to ensure that games are of high quality so as to not hurt the reputation of the platform itself. They want games to help sell consoles. And that's how video game consoles always worked. iPhones, on the other hand, are not specialized. They're general-purpose devices at this point — both by design and by how Apple markets them. The problem is, both developers and users see the app store and its policies as a nuisance.

baddox 6y ago
> They want to ensure that games are of high quality so as to not hurt the reputation of the platform itself. They want games to help sell consoles. And that's how video game consoles always worked. And my argument is that an overall better (according to each individual buyer's preference) software experience is a major (perhaps the single largest) differentiator of iPhones over competing smartphones. This has always been a major part of Apple's marketing and indeed is the primary reason I use an iPhone. Yes, on the iPhone it's "games and other apps" instead of just games, but I don't see that being a major difference (particularly since game consoles can serve other purposes too, like media consumption and home automation). My argument is that iPhones are and have always been essentially "the game console of smartphones" or "the appliance of smartphones." In fact, that type of description is often used both pejoratively by iPhone haters and lovingly by iPhone fans. They're simply not made for or marketed to people who want a general-purpose Unix PC with a cell phone antenna built in, even though technically they are essentially that (note, of course, that iPhones and game consoles are technically general purpose computers, but that's not really relevant). > They're general-purpose devices at this point — both by design and by how Apple markets them. The problem is, both developers and users see the app store and its policies as a nuisance. I strongly disagree with your impression here. My impression has been that complaints about App Store rules have overwhelmingly come from a small number of extremely large developers (unsurprisingly, developers that are big enough that they want to make a play to shift some of Apple's market power toward themselves). I don't see iPhone owners complaining about App Store rules, and I suspect one reason is that anyone who values being able to sideload any software on their smartphone has many very nice Android options.