4 ms·

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

by 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!

nodamage 6y ago
> Absolutely terrible analogy. How about instead you were denied the right to own a smartphone? Who exactly has been denied the right to own a smartphone? Speaking of terrible analogies... You are repeatedly conflating the iPhone with all smartphones. Saying that the smartphone is a mandatory device does not contradict the idea that the iPhone (a specific luxury brand of smartphone) is not.
- mthoms 6y ago
  If you quote me, please don't omit the context. Which was: 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! A game console is not, as I'm sure you'll agree, a substitute for a smartphone. Which is what the (intentionally ridiculous) hypothetical was illustrating. The analogy of the parent was Coke v. Pepsi, but that falls flat because one is near perfect substitute for the other (for the vast majority of people). >You are repeatedly conflating the iPhone with all smartphones. The parent said "the iPhone is a console, end of story" which means all smartphones are consoles. Right?
  - nodamage 6y ago
    I understand the context but I think you've actually largely misunderstood the point of the original poster you were quoting: > To me the iPhone is a console, end of story. That poster was suggesting the iPhone is an intentionally locked-down device similar to the way that consoles are locked-down devices. They also suggested there are alternative devices on the market (Android for smartphones, PCs for gaming) that are not locked-down for users who prefer that approach. Whereas you've interpreted the original post to mean that smartphones have the same level of utility as consoles, but no one actually suggested that. So you jumping in to point out that smartphones are more useful than consoles is, while true, not really relevant to this particular discussion. > The parent said "the iPhone is a console, end of story" which means all smartphones are consoles. Right? No, see my above explanation. Regardless, they specifically used the word iPhone, why did you think it was appropriate to interpret that to mean all smartphones? If I said "a Ferrari is X" no one would reasonably interpret that to mean "all vehicles are X".
    - mthoms 6y ago
      Try to re-read my comment detached from the original posters overall argument since I actually made no mention of it. My problem (as I though was clear, perhaps not) is with dismissively equating (any) smartphone with consoles. Especially as it relates to business models and user freedoms. It's intellectually lazy and is especially a disservice when used dismissively ("end of story"). We can and should do better.
      - nodamage 6y ago
        So you took a single sentence from an entire paragraph out of context and proceeded to post an elaborate counter-argument against an argument the original poster hadn't actually made? Literally the same thing you were complaining about two posts above? No one actually suggested smartphones have the same level of utility as a console. The original point was that one specific aspect (tightly controlled software distribution) of one specific brand of phone (the iPhone) is similar to the console experience and is something certain users might actually prefer, which is an entirely fair point to make.

by mthoms 6y ago

nodamage 6y ago

> Absolutely terrible analogy. How about instead you were denied the right to own a smartphone? Who exactly has been denied the right to own a smartphone? Speaking of terrible analogies... You are repeatedly conflating the iPhone with all smartphones. Saying that the smartphone is a mandatory device does not contradict the idea that the iPhone (a specific luxury brand of smartphone) is not.

mthoms 6y ago
If you quote me, please don't omit the context. Which was: 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! A game console is not, as I'm sure you'll agree, a substitute for a smartphone. Which is what the (intentionally ridiculous) hypothetical was illustrating. The analogy of the parent was Coke v. Pepsi, but that falls flat because one is near perfect substitute for the other (for the vast majority of people). >You are repeatedly conflating the iPhone with all smartphones. The parent said "the iPhone is a console, end of story" which means all smartphones are consoles. Right?
- nodamage 6y ago
  I understand the context but I think you've actually largely misunderstood the point of the original poster you were quoting: > To me the iPhone is a console, end of story. That poster was suggesting the iPhone is an intentionally locked-down device similar to the way that consoles are locked-down devices. They also suggested there are alternative devices on the market (Android for smartphones, PCs for gaming) that are not locked-down for users who prefer that approach. Whereas you've interpreted the original post to mean that smartphones have the same level of utility as consoles, but no one actually suggested that. So you jumping in to point out that smartphones are more useful than consoles is, while true, not really relevant to this particular discussion. > The parent said "the iPhone is a console, end of story" which means all smartphones are consoles. Right? No, see my above explanation. Regardless, they specifically used the word iPhone, why did you think it was appropriate to interpret that to mean all smartphones? If I said "a Ferrari is X" no one would reasonably interpret that to mean "all vehicles are X".
  - mthoms 6y ago
    Try to re-read my comment detached from the original posters overall argument since I actually made no mention of it. My problem (as I though was clear, perhaps not) is with dismissively equating (any) smartphone with consoles. Especially as it relates to business models and user freedoms. It's intellectually lazy and is especially a disservice when used dismissively ("end of story"). We can and should do better.
    - nodamage 6y ago
      So you took a single sentence from an entire paragraph out of context and proceeded to post an elaborate counter-argument against an argument the original poster hadn't actually made? Literally the same thing you were complaining about two posts above? No one actually suggested smartphones have the same level of utility as a console. The original point was that one specific aspect (tightly controlled software distribution) of one specific brand of phone (the iPhone) is similar to the console experience and is something certain users might actually prefer, which is an entirely fair point to make.