4 ms·

Gruber is missing a key point here - smartphones have become an integral, necessary tool used for life in general, whereas game consoles are not like that. Als

Gruber is missing a key point here - smartphones have become an integral, necessary tool used for life in general, whereas game consoles are not like that. Also, most game consoles are sold below market value and the royalties from the games sold are integral to their viability - whereas Apple already makes a tidy sum on their phones.

rhn_mk1 6y ago
There's nothing stopping game consoles from being like that: portable ones are made of the same stuff as phones (Switch), stationary ones are PCs. This loops back to the fact that they are not open: if they were open, they would end up being necessary. As they are restricted, they are not necessary. Not being necessary does not predetermine them to be restricted. Similar with selling below market value, the argument loops back on the status quo: if they were made general purpose, they would not be sold at a loss. As they are restricted, they are getting sold at a loss. Being sold at a loss doesn't predetermine them to be restricted.
lucraft 6y ago
I'm not sure why you are being downvoted. The legalistic interpretation is that there is no difference between Xbox and iOS except success – what laws or principles already exist to distinguish between them? Therefore your argument is invalid. Perhaps this is why. But I don't want to play that game. I just know that I want my primary computing platform and a major computing platform in my society to be open and not put a high tax on all economic activity – this seems important. But I do not particularly care if a games console I use does or not. Someone else can figure out the laws and fine distinctions. EDIT: The Xbox can be used to watch TV and browse the web, so it is also "general purpose" by a strict definition.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

4 ms·

Gruber is missing a key point here - smartphones have become an integral, necessary tool used for life in general, whereas game consoles are not like that. Als

by icameherefor 6y ago

rhn_mk1 6y ago
There's nothing stopping game consoles from being like that: portable ones are made of the same stuff as phones (Switch), stationary ones are PCs. This loops back to the fact that they are not open: if they were open, they would end up being necessary. As they are restricted, they are not necessary. Not being necessary does not predetermine them to be restricted. Similar with selling below market value, the argument loops back on the status quo: if they were made general purpose, they would not be sold at a loss. As they are restricted, they are getting sold at a loss. Being sold at a loss doesn't predetermine them to be restricted.
lucraft 6y ago
I'm not sure why you are being downvoted. The legalistic interpretation is that there is no difference between Xbox and iOS except success – what laws or principles already exist to distinguish between them? Therefore your argument is invalid. Perhaps this is why. But I don't want to play that game. I just know that I want my primary computing platform and a major computing platform in my society to be open and not put a high tax on all economic activity – this seems important. But I do not particularly care if a games console I use does or not. Someone else can figure out the laws and fine distinctions. EDIT: The Xbox can be used to watch TV and browse the web, so it is also "general purpose" by a strict definition.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]