5 ms·

Game consoles are toys, smartphones are an integral part of people's lives and livelihoods.

baddox 6y ago
That's a very flimsy definition of the difference. Game consoles are generally much more powerful general-purpose PCs that can do everything an iPhone can do (except connecting to cell networks). They tend to be full multimedia consumption devices and can also manage other electronics in your home (lights, security cameras, etc.). Any supposed benefit iPhone owners would gain from being able to run unsigned code would also apply to console owners.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  True, but your Tesla has a super-powerful general purpose computer in it that connects to cell networks, and is likely way more powerful. Nobody's going to argue a Tesla is a PC.
  - baddox 6y ago
    I'm curious how someone could argue that Apple's App Store rules are anticompetitve and that they should be forced to change them, while also arguing that the same doesn't apply to Tesla's media computer(s). Is it just because there are more iPhones than Teslas?
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      FWIW I personally don't. However, I see the argument to be made that in selling a Mac or an iPhone, you're being sold a general-purpose computing device with explicit value added by third-party software vendors. Also, on macOS, you were sold the explicit ability to run whatever software you want. It's purpose is to run software from third-parties. When you bought a Tesla, that wasn't how the car was represented to you. It's purpose is to drive, and yeah it's got a sweet big screen that happens to run apps, but that's ancillary. Legally, I think that matters. From a free-software perspective, I agree, I would also like to run whatever I want on my car.
      - baddox 6y ago
        > Also, on macOS, you were sold the explicit ability to run whatever software you want. It's purpose is to run software from third-parties. I agree with that, and I think there would be a much stronger argument if Apple changed MacOS to remove this ability when it is a very well-established ability of the Mac platform. Of course, Apple almost certainly will not remove this ability, not because they want to be nice or they want to dodge antitrust allegations, but because they know that doing so would lose them customers. But with iPhone, my argument is that this is absolutely not the expectation fostered by Apple's marketing or held by the vast majority of iPhone owners. Apple has always been very proud of its App Store and its (supposedly) strict vetting process to protect iPhone owners from malware, privacy violations, and other junk. Now, I personally think Apple should be much more restrictive about what apps it allows in the store, because there is a vast wasteland of abandoned apps and junk apps. If anything, the iPhone seems to have gotten less and less restrictive over time (the first iPhone didn't even support any third-party software, after all). I have a lot of trouble buying the argument that any significant number of iPhone owners expected to be able to run any third-party software they want to.
        arcticbull 6y ago
        > I have a lot of trouble buying the argument that any significant number of iPhone owners expected to be able to run any third-party software they want to. While I agree with the overwhelming majority of your reply, I'd suggest that the significant majority of iPhone owners expect to be able to run "any third-party software they want" because they expect substantially any third-party software they would want to be available in the App Store. Removing Epic is violating that implicit understanding.
        baddox 6y ago
        I see your point, but surely it's not controversial that Epic very deliberately broke the rules in order to get its app removed from the App Store, right? Epic is probably just hoping that iPhone owners will take Epic's side and blame Apple for the removal (or even more likely, Epic only cares about the effects of the PR on the court case). I can't predict how every iPhone owner who plays Fortnite will react to this, but it seems like any slightly inquisitive person would look at the situation and think, hmm, it seems like Fortnite existed on the App Store for a long time, so what changed?
YarickR2 6y ago
Games on smartphones are not integral part of people lives and livelihoods.
- gridlockd 6y ago
  Perhaps, but the lawsuit isn't specifically about games either.
misnome 6y ago
What's preventing a console being used as a productivity platform? Isn't it just the artificial restriction on where you can get software for it from?
- gridlockd 6y ago
  Its stated purpose. Sony once tried to get some tax advantages by classifying the PS3 as a general purpose computer, which they achieved through the "OtherOS" feature, which allowed you to run Linux. They later removed that feature, causing a class action lawsuit, which they settled.
  - hnick 6y ago
    Is it simple to find out what category Apple is importing iPhones under in various places? I had a quick search but not hitting anything relevant.

That's a very flimsy definition of the difference. Game consoles are generally much more powerful general-purpose PCs that can do everything an iPhone can do (except connecting to cell networks). They tend to be full multimedia consumption devices and can also manage other electronics in your home (lights, security cameras, etc.). Any supposed benefit iPhone owners would gain from being able to run unsigned code would also apply to console owners.

arcticbull 6y ago
True, but your Tesla has a super-powerful general purpose computer in it that connects to cell networks, and is likely way more powerful. Nobody's going to argue a Tesla is a PC.
- baddox 6y ago
  I'm curious how someone could argue that Apple's App Store rules are anticompetitve and that they should be forced to change them, while also arguing that the same doesn't apply to Tesla's media computer(s). Is it just because there are more iPhones than Teslas?
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    FWIW I personally don't. However, I see the argument to be made that in selling a Mac or an iPhone, you're being sold a general-purpose computing device with explicit value added by third-party software vendors. Also, on macOS, you were sold the explicit ability to run whatever software you want. It's purpose is to run software from third-parties. When you bought a Tesla, that wasn't how the car was represented to you. It's purpose is to drive, and yeah it's got a sweet big screen that happens to run apps, but that's ancillary. Legally, I think that matters. From a free-software perspective, I agree, I would also like to run whatever I want on my car.
    - baddox 6y ago
      > Also, on macOS, you were sold the explicit ability to run whatever software you want. It's purpose is to run software from third-parties. I agree with that, and I think there would be a much stronger argument if Apple changed MacOS to remove this ability when it is a very well-established ability of the Mac platform. Of course, Apple almost certainly will not remove this ability, not because they want to be nice or they want to dodge antitrust allegations, but because they know that doing so would lose them customers. But with iPhone, my argument is that this is absolutely not the expectation fostered by Apple's marketing or held by the vast majority of iPhone owners. Apple has always been very proud of its App Store and its (supposedly) strict vetting process to protect iPhone owners from malware, privacy violations, and other junk. Now, I personally think Apple should be much more restrictive about what apps it allows in the store, because there is a vast wasteland of abandoned apps and junk apps. If anything, the iPhone seems to have gotten less and less restrictive over time (the first iPhone didn't even support any third-party software, after all). I have a lot of trouble buying the argument that any significant number of iPhone owners expected to be able to run any third-party software they want to.
      - arcticbull 6y ago
        > I have a lot of trouble buying the argument that any significant number of iPhone owners expected to be able to run any third-party software they want to. While I agree with the overwhelming majority of your reply, I'd suggest that the significant majority of iPhone owners expect to be able to run "any third-party software they want" because they expect substantially any third-party software they would want to be available in the App Store. Removing Epic is violating that implicit understanding.
        baddox 6y ago
        I see your point, but surely it's not controversial that Epic very deliberately broke the rules in order to get its app removed from the App Store, right? Epic is probably just hoping that iPhone owners will take Epic's side and blame Apple for the removal (or even more likely, Epic only cares about the effects of the PR on the court case). I can't predict how every iPhone owner who plays Fortnite will react to this, but it seems like any slightly inquisitive person would look at the situation and think, hmm, it seems like Fortnite existed on the App Store for a long time, so what changed?

YarickR2 6y ago

Games on smartphones are not integral part of people lives and livelihoods.

gridlockd 6y ago
Perhaps, but the lawsuit isn't specifically about games either.

misnome 6y ago

What's preventing a console being used as a productivity platform? Isn't it just the artificial restriction on where you can get software for it from?

gridlockd 6y ago
Its stated purpose. Sony once tried to get some tax advantages by classifying the PS3 as a general purpose computer, which they achieved through the "OtherOS" feature, which allowed you to run Linux. They later removed that feature, causing a class action lawsuit, which they settled.
- hnick 6y ago
  Is it simple to find out what category Apple is importing iPhones under in various places? I had a quick search but not hitting anything relevant.