6 ms·

>To me the iPhone is a console, end of story. I'm so tired of hearing this ridiculous analogy. From a purely technical stand point it may be true, but for a l

by mthoms 6y ago

>To me the iPhone is a console, end of story. I'm so tired of hearing this ridiculous analogy. From a purely technical stand point it may be true, but for a large chunk of the population, the smartphone is their one and only connection to the digital world. It controls their connection to their bank accounts, governments, news/discourse, family, friends, dating life, education (formal and informal), medical information, insurance policies, wayfinding, weather forecasts and emergency services. For those with disabilities, it affords them a quality of life they might not otherwise have. For others still, it contains their most personal thoughts, ideas, dreams and memories. One can certainly argue that because of all that, the app ecosystem should be tightly controlled. That's fair. But the smartphone has grown beyond a simple "nice-to-have" utility. It's a base-level necessity for modern life. Since this trend is only accelerating, we need to recognize that and frame our discussions accordingly.

DivisionSol 6y ago
Making laws based on ephemeral societal standards lays groundwork for abuse. I would rather a law on the technicality of things, than opinions and feelings.
bhupy 6y ago
Only 10 years ago, none of what you said was true. Who knows what the world will look like 10 years from now. Basing policy on the current ephemeral norms rather than consistently applied principles seems ill-advised. Also, even in a world where the mobile phone is that ubiquitous and important, there's no inherent societal obligation that one absolutely NEEDS to use a particular company's phone, especially in a market that has plenty of alternatives.
- mthoms 6y ago
  My comment was not about a particular company, nor was it advocating for any specific policy. It was merely illustrating why equating smartphones with consoles is foolish and lazy. >Basing policy on the current ephemeral norms rather than consistently applied principles seems ill-advised. I agree. What "consistently applied principle" did you interpret my comment to be against?
  - bhupy 6y ago
    > I agree. What "consistently applied principle" did you interpret my comment to be against? The principle that would be applied when considering game consoles. In other words, it's not "foolish" or "lazy", rather it is what consistently applying a principle looks like in practice. The perceived difference between user behavior or criticality on big glass app-based smartphones vs consoles is ephemeral.
    - mthoms 6y ago
      >The principle that would be applied when considering game consoles. What "principle" is that, specifically? I genuinely don't understand. Is it my usage of disparaging terms? If so, that's fair. If not, can you articulate why the idea put forth that it's useless to compare consoles and smartphones is somehow violating a "first principle". What first principle does that idea violate?
      - bhupy 6y ago
        To summarize the conversation so far: burlesona extended an analogy by suggesting that console software lock-in is a feature that gamers seek out, and for those gamers that don't like it, there is a more than acceptable option that other gamers seek out. Their argument is that the principles that would apply with gaming consoles should also in theory also apply with app-based mobile phones. You countered that it was a "ridiculous analogy" that it's "foolish" and "lazy" (really, try cordially engaging with an argument next time) — suggesting that mobile phones are more critical than game consoles because the former are practically a part of people's everyday life, and more than just a "nice-to-have". I (and a couple others) responded by pointing out that the practical reality you pointed out is true now, but wasn't true as recently as 10 years ago, and that it's hard to know if it will continue to be true 10 years from now. I explicitly referred to this as an "ephemeral norm", and that basing policy on ephemeral norms rather than abstract principles is ill-advised, to which you agreed. The market conditions will most probably change as different technologies are invented, as has been the case for the last century. Apple's walled garden is a feature to a lot of its customers (myself included), and people like me seek that out. For those customers that don't like it, there is a more than acceptable OS option (and many acceptable hardware options) that they may seek out. That is the abstract principle.
threeseed 6y ago
Note that I can do all of that with my Sony TV. And this idea that a smartphone is a necessity is ridiculous given that most of the world doesn't have one.
- mthoms 6y ago
  Most of the world doesn't have toilets, running water or democratically elected governments either. But in the west those are still considered "necessities". I'm not equating the need for a smartphone with the above things, of course. The point is that "necessity" in this context is relative to those you compete with, and is not a binary black or white. It's a scale of grey. In my opinion, having an informed, engaged, educated, and well connected populace is indeed a necessity. The smartphone (+ the internet) facilitates that better than any invention since the printing press IMHO.
sugarpile 6y ago
It’s interesting you bring up disabilities since forcing apple to open up to other app stores will likely harm accessibility. Accessibility on iOS is second to none. I be surprised if many disabled users were in the “open up iOS” camp.
- mthoms 6y ago
  I agree actually. This is indeed a great argument for Apple's approach. FYI, I'm not necessarily in the "open up IOS" camp. In my comment above I'm only claiming to be in the "equating smartphones with consoles is lazy" camp :-)
jVinc 6y ago
> But the smartphone has grown beyond a simple "nice-to-have" utility. Lets frame the discussion accordingly indeed. Not all gaming machines are consoles and not all smartphones are iPhones. Why should we prevent Sony from providing a console just because the PC is much more than a nice-to-have utility and their console competes with PC's? Apple is not a monopoly, and they are not even the majority of smart phones. Why should they be forced not to deliver a console experience (that many even if not the majority enjoy) simply because the category as a whole is an essential utilty? Why should we enforce through law what can be perfectly well accomplished by people voting with their feet and just buying the smartphone devices that aren't walled gardens? I don't particularly like Pepsi, and rather enjoy coka cola, but I'm not going to go out on a mad rager about how "cola products are abundant throughout our society, so we desperately need to force Pepsi to change their recipe to align with coka-colas because otherwise our society is going to suffer from drinking bad cola!" If you don't like iPhones don't buy them. If you don't like consol don't buy them. But trying to argue that the pc is such a essential utility and that it competes in some subset of functionality and that no-one should therefore be allowed to produce or own consoles is just absurd.
- aptgetrekt 6y ago
  Lets say theoretically PC gaming didn't exist. If the only way to play games was with a console from Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo do you really think they would be selling consoles at a loss[1]? PC gaming is what keeps consoles priced competitively. If smartphones are like consoles, then currently you can only buy consoles. Sure Android is a little bit more open than iOS but not by much. There's not a problem with the existence of walled gardens / console-like devices, but there needs to be options available that aren't so restricted. Currently 99% of the smartphone market is controlled by Apple and Google, neither of which are willing to give up their control so I think this is a case where some kind of intervention is required to introduce competition. [1] https://www.cnet.com/news/playstation-4-to-sell-at-a-loss-but-sony-expects-profit/ https://www.cnet.com/news/playstation-4-to-sell-at-a-loss-bu...
- mthoms 6y ago
  I don't follow what point you're making. I mentioned nothing about monopolies, disallowing anyone from making a phone or console(?), nor Apple specifically. My comment was about smartphones in general. It's pretty simple. Gaming consoles are primarily (almost exclusively) for entertainment. Smartphones are for accessing information, essential services (ie. banking), directions, forecasts, and news. They also facilitate communicating with family, friends, business associates, emergency services and in many cases the government itself. Oh, they also contain our most intimate thoughts, plans, ideas and memories. It's not even comparable. At all. >I don't particularly like Pepsi, and rather enjoy coka cola, but I'm not going to go out on a mad rager ... Absolutely terrible analogy. How about instead you were denied the right to own a smartphone? But were told it's okay because hey, you have a console! It's a perfect substitute!
burlesona 6y ago
Nothing you are saying is false, but why can't people who want a different experience just buy an Android or alternative phone? A smartphone may be an essential utility, but an iPhone specifically is not. I feel your argument is like saying I want my car to be gas-powered and I want it to be a Tesla. It doesn't matter that it that many other manufacturers exist, I demand Tesla make gas-powered cars so that I can buy a Tesla and run it on the energy source of my choice.
- lewdev 6y ago
  Absolutely. The iPhone is actually a "nice to have" utility. A $100 phone from Walmart will fulfill the "base-level necessities for modern life." The game console is an awesome analogy.
  - mthoms 6y ago
    Right, but I wasn't speaking about iPhones, I was speaking about smartphones in general.
pfundstein 6y ago
> It's a base-level necessity for modern life. That is not true, people think they couldn't survive without their smartphones but anecdotally, and as a systems engineer, I feel free without it. I use a PC for work and play, but not having a computer in my pocket constantly spamming me with trivial notifications helps me delineate life and the digital world. I used to waste way too much time on my smartphone as well, with a daily screen time of 5 hours, so now I find that I've got more time for hobbies, friends & family. </anecdote>

by mthoms 6y ago

DivisionSol 6y ago

Making laws based on ephemeral societal standards lays groundwork for abuse. I would rather a law on the technicality of things, than opinions and feelings.

bhupy 6y ago

Only 10 years ago, none of what you said was true. Who knows what the world will look like 10 years from now. Basing policy on the current ephemeral norms rather than consistently applied principles seems ill-advised. Also, even in a world where the mobile phone is that ubiquitous and important, there's no inherent societal obligation that one absolutely NEEDS to use a particular company's phone, especially in a market that has plenty of alternatives.

mthoms 6y ago
My comment was not about a particular company, nor was it advocating for any specific policy. It was merely illustrating why equating smartphones with consoles is foolish and lazy. >Basing policy on the current ephemeral norms rather than consistently applied principles seems ill-advised. I agree. What "consistently applied principle" did you interpret my comment to be against?
- bhupy 6y ago
  > I agree. What "consistently applied principle" did you interpret my comment to be against? The principle that would be applied when considering game consoles. In other words, it's not "foolish" or "lazy", rather it is what consistently applying a principle looks like in practice. The perceived difference between user behavior or criticality on big glass app-based smartphones vs consoles is ephemeral.
  - mthoms 6y ago
    >The principle that would be applied when considering game consoles. What "principle" is that, specifically? I genuinely don't understand. Is it my usage of disparaging terms? If so, that's fair. If not, can you articulate why the idea put forth that it's useless to compare consoles and smartphones is somehow violating a "first principle". What first principle does that idea violate?
    - bhupy 6y ago
      To summarize the conversation so far: burlesona extended an analogy by suggesting that console software lock-in is a feature that gamers seek out, and for those gamers that don't like it, there is a more than acceptable option that other gamers seek out. Their argument is that the principles that would apply with gaming consoles should also in theory also apply with app-based mobile phones. You countered that it was a "ridiculous analogy" that it's "foolish" and "lazy" (really, try cordially engaging with an argument next time) — suggesting that mobile phones are more critical than game consoles because the former are practically a part of people's everyday life, and more than just a "nice-to-have". I (and a couple others) responded by pointing out that the practical reality you pointed out is true now, but wasn't true as recently as 10 years ago, and that it's hard to know if it will continue to be true 10 years from now. I explicitly referred to this as an "ephemeral norm", and that basing policy on ephemeral norms rather than abstract principles is ill-advised, to which you agreed. The market conditions will most probably change as different technologies are invented, as has been the case for the last century. Apple's walled garden is a feature to a lot of its customers (myself included), and people like me seek that out. For those customers that don't like it, there is a more than acceptable OS option (and many acceptable hardware options) that they may seek out. That is the abstract principle.

threeseed 6y ago

Note that I can do all of that with my Sony TV. And this idea that a smartphone is a necessity is ridiculous given that most of the world doesn't have one.

mthoms 6y ago
Most of the world doesn't have toilets, running water or democratically elected governments either. But in the west those are still considered "necessities". I'm not equating the need for a smartphone with the above things, of course. The point is that "necessity" in this context is relative to those you compete with, and is not a binary black or white. It's a scale of grey. In my opinion, having an informed, engaged, educated, and well connected populace is indeed a necessity. The smartphone (+ the internet) facilitates that better than any invention since the printing press IMHO.

sugarpile 6y ago

It’s interesting you bring up disabilities since forcing apple to open up to other app stores will likely harm accessibility. Accessibility on iOS is second to none. I be surprised if many disabled users were in the “open up iOS” camp.

mthoms 6y ago
I agree actually. This is indeed a great argument for Apple's approach. FYI, I'm not necessarily in the "open up IOS" camp. In my comment above I'm only claiming to be in the "equating smartphones with consoles is lazy" camp :-)

jVinc 6y ago

> But the smartphone has grown beyond a simple "nice-to-have" utility. Lets frame the discussion accordingly indeed. Not all gaming machines are consoles and not all smartphones are iPhones. Why should we prevent Sony from providing a console just because the PC is much more than a nice-to-have utility and their console competes with PC's? Apple is not a monopoly, and they are not even the majority of smart phones. Why should they be forced not to deliver a console experience (that many even if not the majority enjoy) simply because the category as a whole is an essential utilty? Why should we enforce through law what can be perfectly well accomplished by people voting with their feet and just buying the smartphone devices that aren't walled gardens? I don't particularly like Pepsi, and rather enjoy coka cola, but I'm not going to go out on a mad rager about how "cola products are abundant throughout our society, so we desperately need to force Pepsi to change their recipe to align with coka-colas because otherwise our society is going to suffer from drinking bad cola!" If you don't like iPhones don't buy them. If you don't like consol don't buy them. But trying to argue that the pc is such a essential utility and that it competes in some subset of functionality and that no-one should therefore be allowed to produce or own consoles is just absurd.

aptgetrekt 6y ago
Lets say theoretically PC gaming didn't exist. If the only way to play games was with a console from Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo do you really think they would be selling consoles at a loss[1]? PC gaming is what keeps consoles priced competitively. If smartphones are like consoles, then currently you can only buy consoles. Sure Android is a little bit more open than iOS but not by much. There's not a problem with the existence of walled gardens / console-like devices, but there needs to be options available that aren't so restricted. Currently 99% of the smartphone market is controlled by Apple and Google, neither of which are willing to give up their control so I think this is a case where some kind of intervention is required to introduce competition. [1] https://www.cnet.com/news/playstation-4-to-sell-at-a-loss-but-sony-expects-profit/ https://www.cnet.com/news/playstation-4-to-sell-at-a-loss-bu...
mthoms 6y ago
I don't follow what point you're making. I mentioned nothing about monopolies, disallowing anyone from making a phone or console(?), nor Apple specifically. My comment was about smartphones in general. It's pretty simple. Gaming consoles are primarily (almost exclusively) for entertainment. Smartphones are for accessing information, essential services (ie. banking), directions, forecasts, and news. They also facilitate communicating with family, friends, business associates, emergency services and in many cases the government itself. Oh, they also contain our most intimate thoughts, plans, ideas and memories. It's not even comparable. At all. >I don't particularly like Pepsi, and rather enjoy coka cola, but I'm not going to go out on a mad rager ... Absolutely terrible analogy. How about instead you were denied the right to own a smartphone? But were told it's okay because hey, you have a console! It's a perfect substitute!

burlesona 6y ago

Nothing you are saying is false, but why can't people who want a different experience just buy an Android or alternative phone? A smartphone may be an essential utility, but an iPhone specifically is not. I feel your argument is like saying I want my car to be gas-powered and I want it to be a Tesla. It doesn't matter that it that many other manufacturers exist, I demand Tesla make gas-powered cars so that I can buy a Tesla and run it on the energy source of my choice.

lewdev 6y ago
Absolutely. The iPhone is actually a "nice to have" utility. A $100 phone from Walmart will fulfill the "base-level necessities for modern life." The game console is an awesome analogy.
- mthoms 6y ago
  Right, but I wasn't speaking about iPhones, I was speaking about smartphones in general.

pfundstein 6y ago

> It's a base-level necessity for modern life. That is not true, people think they couldn't survive without their smartphones but anecdotally, and as a systems engineer, I feel free without it. I use a PC for work and play, but not having a computer in my pocket constantly spamming me with trivial notifications helps me delineate life and the digital world. I used to waste way too much time on my smartphone as well, with a daily screen time of 5 hours, so now I find that I've got more time for hobbies, friends & family. </anecdote>