5 ms·

> Smartphone/tablet OSs are logical successors to the laptop/desktop OSs we have not game consoles. They are general purpose computing platforms. Game consoles

> Smartphone/tablet OSs are logical successors to the laptop/desktop OSs we have not game consoles. They are general purpose computing platforms. Game consoles are general computing platforms as much as anything. Like Apple's devices they are artificially restricted with a walled garden model. "I own this device, therefore I should be able to run anything I want" is an argument I can understand. "Company X invented this platform and therefore can choose what to allow to run on it" is also an argument I can understand (though I disagree). What I can't understand is this argument that Apple specifically shouldn't be allowed to restrict software but game consoles should.

actuator 6y ago
> What I can't understand is this argument that Apple specifically shouldn't be allowed to restrict software but game consoles should. If it was upto me, I would even argue for fairer rules there. Right now, it is Apple and they are sitting on a much more important computing platform for developers in terms of value, so I am fine if companies concentrate their efforts on iOS. If a precedent comes from this that can be applied in other places, I am all for it.
username90 6y ago
The main selling point of game consoles are uniform hardware specs and knowing that the console can run all games released on it. That isn't true for phones.
- dhosek 6y ago
  Maybe not in the Android case, but in the iPhone case, it is pretty much true and there are clear ways to deal with the variances in capabilities between iPhone models. It's a much more predictable platform than for PCs or even Macs.
  - username90 6y ago
    It isn't true in the iphone case either, they don't create a new appstore when they release new hardware generations so they don't check if apps works fine on older hardware nor do they guarantee that the software you buy in their appstore continues to work after updates. Instead it is up to the software provider to update things when Apple breaks their product and to inform the user of which phone can run the app.
    - syspec 6y ago
      PS4 plays the same games as ps4 pro, but has different specs
- Spivak 6y ago
  s/games/software and this could be a quote from 5 years ago about how nice it is to develop for iOS because of its uniform hardware and how long Apple supports their devices. We can go back and forth naming differences between phones and consoles: phones are smaller and have cellular chips, consoles are usually connected to TVs -- but if you can't say why a difference is so fundamental that they should be treated as entirely different classes of things then it doesn't matter.
  - username90 6y ago
    What are you talking about? The iphone appstore haven't had uniform hardware since 2008 when the second generation iphone was released.
  - mthoms 6y ago
    >We can go back and forth naming differences between phones and consoles: phones are smaller and have cellular chips, consoles are usually connected to TVs -- but if you can't say why a difference is so fundamental that they should be treated as entirely different classes of things then it doesn't matter. Here's the fundamental bit: For the vast majority, it's the primary (often only) way to connect with friends, family, colleagues, employers, news, government services, education, wayfinding, banking, emergency services, the entirety of the worlds information, and the world economy. It also contains peoples most personal thoughts, search history, intimate conversations/photos, location history, political affiliations, and social graph. For most of the disabled and/or isolated, it affords them a degree of dignity and inclusion that is life changing. The above is doubly true in a post Covid world. So, you can't artificially limit the discussion to technical similarities. The societal implications (the real fundamentals) should matter more than anything. Do you really want a world where we make our decisions based on what's best for society, or solely on what is technically true (smartphones and consoles are both just computers!) We already treat things differently solely because of their importance to society, safety, health, and the economy. Yes, that does mean smartphones are, in a way, victims of their own success because they will be treated differently. But that's not any different from other fundamental inventions in history (the printing press, banking, emergency services, automobiles, communications, etc). NOTE: I'm not advocating for, or against, any specific policy. I'm only pointing out why equating consoles and smartphones is denying some very basic realties about how much the economy and society relies on smart phones (compared to consoles).
slightwinder 6y ago
> Game consoles are general computing platforms as much as anything. By their technical base, yes, but not by their usecase. Consoles have games and apps for media-consumption, but no apps for working, managing your life or other stuff. They are limited in the category of apps they allow, while smartphones and tablets are free for everything (even though they have some restrictions on the type of content they allow in their own app stores).
- catern 6y ago
  Your argument is circular. Game consoles don't have "apps for working, managing your life or other stuff" because they are controlled by a walled garden that prevents that kind of software from being developed. You're essentially saying "they're a walled garden, so they should be a walled garden".
  - slightwinder 6y ago
    Maybe your attention is circular, when you can't even think outside of a single comments. The discussion is about smartphones, not consoles. And I explained that the technical base is irrelevant for whether it's a walled garden or not, because the purpose and usecase are different. Smartphones and Consoles are both universal computing platforms, but only consoles are also used as a universal device, while consoles are walled by design/purpose. So consoles being walled gardens has no relation to whether smartphones should or should not be walled gardens.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      The judge in the case - an actual lawyer - disagrees with you.
      - mthoms 6y ago
        That's a great argument, because everyone knowns judges and lawyers are widely respected among geeks for their deep and nuanced understanding of technology. /s
krzyk 6y ago
> What I can't understand is this argument that Apple specifically shouldn't be allowed to restrict software but game consoles should. Well, I didn't see anyone here saying that game consoles should restrict software they run. They are in the monopoly wagon as much as Apple. Users should be allowed to run any software on their machine.
- 52-6F-62 6y ago
  You can, if you wipe the content-specific platform.
  - krzyk 6y ago
    Then there is still monopoly on that content-specific platform. Think of it as if philips screwdriver producer forbid using those screwdrivers with posidriv heads (it is less efficient but works). And there would be those that would say: "this is their product, they can dictate how it can be used".
    - 52-6F-62 6y ago
      Is there? I bought a closed-platform device by choice. I don't buy a Phillips screwdriver expecting it to work on a Robertson head because I think it should fit every case.
      - krzyk 6y ago
        But you buy it to use it they way you see fit (I assume), not they way the producer did. I still amazes me that people don't have problem with computer hardware+software being closed, enforced, EULA driven. And at the same time they expect to be able to e.g. use knife to open a box and not only cut bread (enforced by EULA). This is similar to what is happening right now with the right to repair of tractors.
        52-6F-62 6y ago
        I can use that screwdriver to try and hammer in a nail, sure. It probably won't work well and I'll likely break the screwdriver or the nail or the other purpose they're both serving. That's not the fault of the company that designed, manufactured, and sold the screwdriver, though. But they won't stop me from doing that either. But they did design the Phillips screwdriver to work optimally with Phillips head screws, so that's what I actually bought it for and use it for. The EULA doesn't prevent you from wiping your iPhone and doing anything with it. It's your hardware. You won't see any warranty help after that, but that's not their problem at that stage. You can even try to use your iPhone as a hammer, but I wouldn't recommend that either. It wasn't designed that way, but you're totally free to do so. Personally, I bought my phone to use it the way it was designed, because I liked the design—not in spite of it.
stale2002 6y ago
> Game consoles are general computing platforms as much as anything. Like Apple's devices they are artificially restricted with a walled garden model. This is true that game consoles are walled gardens. But the question is, what is the market like for game consoles, when you compare common substitutes, as compared to what the market is like for smartphones. I would argue that the game console market is much less concentrated than the smart phone market. Anti-competitive practices are only illegal if a company has significant market power. And, IMO, Apple has much more market power than playstation, given that Apple controls about 50% of the smartphone market, in the USA. > What I can't understand is this argument that Apple specifically shouldn't be allowed to restrict software but game consoles should. The reason is because Apple controls half the smartphone market, in the USA, whereas game consoles don't have that much market power, especially, if one were to claim that the PC market competes with game consoles. (Which I say that it would. And I would also not say that smartphones compete with game consoles) Apple's actions only become illegal, because of the combination of both their actions, and the fact that they have significant market power.

actuator 6y ago

> What I can't understand is this argument that Apple specifically shouldn't be allowed to restrict software but game consoles should. If it was upto me, I would even argue for fairer rules there. Right now, it is Apple and they are sitting on a much more important computing platform for developers in terms of value, so I am fine if companies concentrate their efforts on iOS. If a precedent comes from this that can be applied in other places, I am all for it.

username90 6y ago

The main selling point of game consoles are uniform hardware specs and knowing that the console can run all games released on it. That isn't true for phones.

dhosek 6y ago
Maybe not in the Android case, but in the iPhone case, it is pretty much true and there are clear ways to deal with the variances in capabilities between iPhone models. It's a much more predictable platform than for PCs or even Macs.
- username90 6y ago
  It isn't true in the iphone case either, they don't create a new appstore when they release new hardware generations so they don't check if apps works fine on older hardware nor do they guarantee that the software you buy in their appstore continues to work after updates. Instead it is up to the software provider to update things when Apple breaks their product and to inform the user of which phone can run the app.
  - syspec 6y ago
    PS4 plays the same games as ps4 pro, but has different specs
Spivak 6y ago
s/games/software and this could be a quote from 5 years ago about how nice it is to develop for iOS because of its uniform hardware and how long Apple supports their devices. We can go back and forth naming differences between phones and consoles: phones are smaller and have cellular chips, consoles are usually connected to TVs -- but if you can't say why a difference is so fundamental that they should be treated as entirely different classes of things then it doesn't matter.
- username90 6y ago
  What are you talking about? The iphone appstore haven't had uniform hardware since 2008 when the second generation iphone was released.
- mthoms 6y ago
  >We can go back and forth naming differences between phones and consoles: phones are smaller and have cellular chips, consoles are usually connected to TVs -- but if you can't say why a difference is so fundamental that they should be treated as entirely different classes of things then it doesn't matter. Here's the fundamental bit: For the vast majority, it's the primary (often only) way to connect with friends, family, colleagues, employers, news, government services, education, wayfinding, banking, emergency services, the entirety of the worlds information, and the world economy. It also contains peoples most personal thoughts, search history, intimate conversations/photos, location history, political affiliations, and social graph. For most of the disabled and/or isolated, it affords them a degree of dignity and inclusion that is life changing. The above is doubly true in a post Covid world. So, you can't artificially limit the discussion to technical similarities. The societal implications (the real fundamentals) should matter more than anything. Do you really want a world where we make our decisions based on what's best for society, or solely on what is technically true (smartphones and consoles are both just computers!) We already treat things differently solely because of their importance to society, safety, health, and the economy. Yes, that does mean smartphones are, in a way, victims of their own success because they will be treated differently. But that's not any different from other fundamental inventions in history (the printing press, banking, emergency services, automobiles, communications, etc). NOTE: I'm not advocating for, or against, any specific policy. I'm only pointing out why equating consoles and smartphones is denying some very basic realties about how much the economy and society relies on smart phones (compared to consoles).

slightwinder 6y ago

> Game consoles are general computing platforms as much as anything. By their technical base, yes, but not by their usecase. Consoles have games and apps for media-consumption, but no apps for working, managing your life or other stuff. They are limited in the category of apps they allow, while smartphones and tablets are free for everything (even though they have some restrictions on the type of content they allow in their own app stores).

catern 6y ago
Your argument is circular. Game consoles don't have "apps for working, managing your life or other stuff" because they are controlled by a walled garden that prevents that kind of software from being developed. You're essentially saying "they're a walled garden, so they should be a walled garden".
- slightwinder 6y ago
  Maybe your attention is circular, when you can't even think outside of a single comments. The discussion is about smartphones, not consoles. And I explained that the technical base is irrelevant for whether it's a walled garden or not, because the purpose and usecase are different. Smartphones and Consoles are both universal computing platforms, but only consoles are also used as a universal device, while consoles are walled by design/purpose. So consoles being walled gardens has no relation to whether smartphones should or should not be walled gardens.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    The judge in the case - an actual lawyer - disagrees with you.
    - mthoms 6y ago
      That's a great argument, because everyone knowns judges and lawyers are widely respected among geeks for their deep and nuanced understanding of technology. /s

krzyk 6y ago

> What I can't understand is this argument that Apple specifically shouldn't be allowed to restrict software but game consoles should. Well, I didn't see anyone here saying that game consoles should restrict software they run. They are in the monopoly wagon as much as Apple. Users should be allowed to run any software on their machine.

52-6F-62 6y ago
You can, if you wipe the content-specific platform.
- krzyk 6y ago
  Then there is still monopoly on that content-specific platform. Think of it as if philips screwdriver producer forbid using those screwdrivers with posidriv heads (it is less efficient but works). And there would be those that would say: "this is their product, they can dictate how it can be used".
  - 52-6F-62 6y ago
    Is there? I bought a closed-platform device by choice. I don't buy a Phillips screwdriver expecting it to work on a Robertson head because I think it should fit every case.
    - krzyk 6y ago
      But you buy it to use it they way you see fit (I assume), not they way the producer did. I still amazes me that people don't have problem with computer hardware+software being closed, enforced, EULA driven. And at the same time they expect to be able to e.g. use knife to open a box and not only cut bread (enforced by EULA). This is similar to what is happening right now with the right to repair of tractors.
      - 52-6F-62 6y ago
        I can use that screwdriver to try and hammer in a nail, sure. It probably won't work well and I'll likely break the screwdriver or the nail or the other purpose they're both serving. That's not the fault of the company that designed, manufactured, and sold the screwdriver, though. But they won't stop me from doing that either. But they did design the Phillips screwdriver to work optimally with Phillips head screws, so that's what I actually bought it for and use it for. The EULA doesn't prevent you from wiping your iPhone and doing anything with it. It's your hardware. You won't see any warranty help after that, but that's not their problem at that stage. You can even try to use your iPhone as a hammer, but I wouldn't recommend that either. It wasn't designed that way, but you're totally free to do so. Personally, I bought my phone to use it the way it was designed, because I liked the design—not in spite of it.

stale2002 6y ago

> Game consoles are general computing platforms as much as anything. Like Apple's devices they are artificially restricted with a walled garden model. This is true that game consoles are walled gardens. But the question is, what is the market like for game consoles, when you compare common substitutes, as compared to what the market is like for smartphones. I would argue that the game console market is much less concentrated than the smart phone market. Anti-competitive practices are only illegal if a company has significant market power. And, IMO, Apple has much more market power than playstation, given that Apple controls about 50% of the smartphone market, in the USA. > What I can't understand is this argument that Apple specifically shouldn't be allowed to restrict software but game consoles should. The reason is because Apple controls half the smartphone market, in the USA, whereas game consoles don't have that much market power, especially, if one were to claim that the PC market competes with game consoles. (Which I say that it would. And I would also not say that smartphones compete with game consoles) Apple's actions only become illegal, because of the combination of both their actions, and the fact that they have significant market power.