6 ms·

I have seen this time after time, that when the question of Apple store comes up, a top-rated comment always makes a comparison with game consoles to argue it i

I have seen this time after time, that when the question of Apple store comes up, a top-rated comment always makes a comparison with game consoles to argue it is all fair. I don't personally believe the comparison makes sense, but many on HN do. So I am going to ask, how is this different from PS/Xbox/etc? If the game consoles still 'own' the device after you have bought it, e.g. when PS disabled Linux installation feature via update on consoles they had already sold, why shouldn't Apple be entitled to do the same, to do as it pleases with the devices in perpetuity?

ajconway 5y ago
Not many companies are in the business of being fair or moral, usually it's about making money. Lawmakers have the power to force companies into being more fair (for whatever definition of "fair"). On the comparison between Apple and Sony, — objectively there is no difference except that they work in different markets and the devices they sell have slightly different purposes. If as a result of all of this Apple is forced to make their devices more general-purpose-like, it would be easier to insist that Sony should do the same.
- ReptileMan 5y ago
  Since the console gaming have already gotten the worst parts of the pc gaming, I don't think that bringing the positives to consoles is as threatening as you think.
konschubert 5y ago
Game consoles have negative margins, it’s their business model. If apple started selling iphones at negative margins maybe they would have a better moral stand in charging a tax.
- spideymans 5y ago
  Apple subsidizing the cost of iPhones with revenue from elsewhere in their walled-garden ecosystem would arguably be even more anticompetitive. Apple's competitors don't have the ecosystem advantage that would allow them to generate revenue from other parts of their business. Apple would be able to drive down their iPhone prices, while mainlining exceptional quality, which would be very difficult to compete against.
xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
I can buy a game from a store as well. Or a friend. And sell my games as well. I can choose which console I buy to consume these games on. It's a game-centric system. Sure, the path consoles are heading down will look like the current Apple situation very soon. And I think the same criticisms apply then, too.
- d3nj4l 5y ago
  > I can buy a game from a store as well. Console games sold in stores pay a licensing fee to the console maker, so the maker still gets their 30%. > I can choose which console I buy to consume these games on. Not really? You can't play the new Demons' Souls on an Xbox, no matter how much you want to. You also can't get Gamepass on a PS. Console sales are driven by exclusives.
- pjmlp 5y ago
  It is the other way around, consoles are like this since they were introduced.
oblio 5y ago
Are consoles sold as general computing devices?
- ryandrake 5y ago
  Can you define a "general computing device" in a way that includes PCs and phones, but not game consoles?
  - oblio 5y ago
    That's easy. Can you run spreadsheet programs, image editors, IDES, etc by default on consoles? Just approved software, no jailbreaks, hacks, etc.
    - wincy 5y ago
      I can’t run Xcode on my iPhone either even though that’s what I need to develop apps for my iPhone. Even more strangely I can’t run Xcode on the iPad Pro despite it literally running the same chip that runs Xcode on a cheaper device (the Mac Mini).
    - 5560675260 5y ago
      Yes, all of this is available via web browser.
      - oblio 5y ago
        Ah, nice, can I do any of that offline?
        5560675260 5y ago
        Well, you've asked if it's possible, not if it's practical and convenient under any circumstances.
        oblio 5y ago
mywittyname 5y ago
> So I am going to ask, how is this different from PS/Xbox/etc? Game consoles are specific-purpose computing devices: they play video games with a secondary use of running other entertainment apps (netflix). Phones are general purpose computing devices: they are use to do practically anything that a computer can do; check email, look up navigation, buy things online, check bank balance, create and edit photos/videos. There is an entire universe of apps that don't make sense on an Xbox. Why would your bank create an Xbox app, or why would Adobe port over a version of Photoshop for the Xbox? They wouldn't. And that's the difference between the two.
- spideymans 5y ago
  I'm not necessarily in favour of Apple here, but I do not find this to be a compelling argument. "General-purpose" is an artificial distinction. The idea of "general-purpose" devices do not exist in any legal sense. >Game consoles are specific-purpose computing devices: they play video games with a secondary use of running other entertainment apps (netflix). This is a circular argument. Game consoles are "specific-purpose" because they've been made to be "specific-purpose". The Xbox could be a perfectly adequate gaming PC had Microsoft not decided to artificially lock it down. There's no technical reasons why I shouldn't be able to plug an Xbox into a monitor and get real productivity done on the same machine I play games (like any gaming PC). An even better distinction: the Nintendo Switch. The Switch could easily function as a tablet PC had Nintendo not locked down the system. >There is an entire universe of apps that don't make sense on an Xbox. Why would your bank create an Xbox app, or why would Adobe port over a version of Photoshop for the Xbox? They wouldn't. And that's the difference between the two. And why is this where the line is drawn? I wouldn't put Xcode on my iPhone. Nor would I put Blender or Final Cut Pro. You certainly wouldn't run a web server on an iPhone. These are all things "general-purpose" computers are capable of. You've just drawn the line where it happens to be convenient for this argument. Edit: We should also consider the dangers of this argument too. If we codified what a "general-purpose" device is, the response from manufacturers would be to simply restrict the capabilities of their devices to not be "general-purpose". If banking apps and Photoshop are what makes a computer "general-purpose", then we'll see banking apps and Photoshop banned from platforms.
mthoms 5y ago
One holds your saved games. The other connects you to local emergency services, the global economy, your financial assets, your government, your family, your education, and increasingly - your health care provider. To suggest they should be treated the same is downright laughable. Yes, the underlying technology is similar, but their importance and impact on society is orders of magnitude different.
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  From a legal perspective though, where this matters most, the law makes zero distinction between single purpose and general purpose computing devices whatsoever. Furthermore, they are all computers capable of running code from anywhere and the law views them as such. The distinction you are drawing that consoles are "specific" and iPhones are "general purpose" has no bearing in the law, nor in my opinion should it. From the law's perspective, the iPhone is on the same legal grounds as a PlayStation or Nintendo Switch. Frankly, I don't think the law should try to separate devices. Either this lock-in is legally permitted, for any manufacturer, or it's not permitted and all manufacturers must be open.
  - mthoms 5y ago
    Strong disagree. We should regulate based on what's best for consumers and the free market. Consider that different classes of vehicles are regulated differently, even though they all rely on the same underlying technology. The law should serve the people, not some rigid doctrine.
    - ericmay 5y ago
      > We should regulate based on what's best for consumers and the free market. I agree completely, which is why hopefully Apple prevails. Their ecosystem is the best for Apple customers and the free market.
      - mthoms 5y ago
        That's a perfectly valid argument IMHO. The argument equating smart phones with consoles however, is downright silly. Can I ask, how does letting me have the option of occasionally purchasing songs, books, movies and character skins direct from vendors hurt your ability to enjoy the benefits of purchasing everything direct from Apple? I just don't understand how that would ruin the system for you. If anything, wouldn't it force Apple to improve their store in order to be more competitive? Would that not be a benefit to you?
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
>how is this different from PS/Xbox/etc? They aren't that different but I'm not sure this has been challenged yet. So perhaps that's the difference- nobody has yet challenged Microsoft's monopoly on the Xbox or Sony's monopoly on the Playstation. I would love these platforms to be opened up as well. The fact consoles are closed walled gardens too doesn't excuse Apple's App Store monopoly. Edit: From what I can gather there isn't anywhere near a billion total consoles in use worldwide however there is over a billion active iPhones in use right now: > Apple says there are now over 1 billion active iPhones, with 1.65 billion Apple devices in use overall. https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/27/22253162/iphone-users-total-number-billion-apple-tim-cook-q1-2021 https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/27/22253162/iphone-users-tot...
josephcsible 5y ago
I don't think it's different. I think game console makers are also being unfair and should open up their consoles.
- paulmd 5y ago
  Microsoft is a signatory to this suit and yet is explicitly arguing that they shouldn't have to open up their devices. It's a suit of convenience for everyone involved, nobody is making a principled stand for user freedoms here, they just want to pry open Apple's bank vault, and they don't care if user privacy (permissioning/app review, etc) gets shredded in the process. That the software freedom argument just happens to resonate with a lot of people who will sympathetically argue along with Microsoft and others as they continue to deny user freedoms is merely a bonus.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    > Microsoft is a signatory to this suit and yet is explicitly arguing that they shouldn't have to open up their devices. Can't I agree with Microsoft on some things but disagree on other things? > they don't care if user privacy (permissioning/app review, etc) gets shredded in the process. I don't think there actually has to be a tradeoff between privacy and freedom, but if there were, I'd pick freedom every time.
    - paulmd 5y ago
      Well, the dominant market player supports the approach you want. iOS controls about 15% of the global market, why should the force of law be used to extinguish an alternate user experience that some users want? Like, literally, you're trying to use the force of law to blot out an alternate user experience that you don't like, so that you can make a point about "user freedom". It's a pretty awful thing you're trying to do.
      - josephcsible 5y ago
        I'm not proposing that any user experience be extinguished. I'm fine with the Apple App Store being the default app store, and users being able to continue getting apps only through them and making all payments through them if they want to. I just don't think it should be forced even on people who don't want it.
deergomoo 5y ago
> when PS disabled Linux installation feature via update on consoles they had already sold, why shouldn't Apple be entitled to do the same Didn’t Sony lose a class-action for doing that?
- paulmd 5y ago
  No, they settled.

ajconway 5y ago

Not many companies are in the business of being fair or moral, usually it's about making money. Lawmakers have the power to force companies into being more fair (for whatever definition of "fair"). On the comparison between Apple and Sony, — objectively there is no difference except that they work in different markets and the devices they sell have slightly different purposes. If as a result of all of this Apple is forced to make their devices more general-purpose-like, it would be easier to insist that Sony should do the same.

ReptileMan 5y ago
Since the console gaming have already gotten the worst parts of the pc gaming, I don't think that bringing the positives to consoles is as threatening as you think.

konschubert 5y ago

Game consoles have negative margins, it’s their business model. If apple started selling iphones at negative margins maybe they would have a better moral stand in charging a tax.

spideymans 5y ago
Apple subsidizing the cost of iPhones with revenue from elsewhere in their walled-garden ecosystem would arguably be even more anticompetitive. Apple's competitors don't have the ecosystem advantage that would allow them to generate revenue from other parts of their business. Apple would be able to drive down their iPhone prices, while mainlining exceptional quality, which would be very difficult to compete against.

xyzzy_plugh 5y ago

I can buy a game from a store as well. Or a friend. And sell my games as well. I can choose which console I buy to consume these games on. It's a game-centric system. Sure, the path consoles are heading down will look like the current Apple situation very soon. And I think the same criticisms apply then, too.

d3nj4l 5y ago
> I can buy a game from a store as well. Console games sold in stores pay a licensing fee to the console maker, so the maker still gets their 30%. > I can choose which console I buy to consume these games on. Not really? You can't play the new Demons' Souls on an Xbox, no matter how much you want to. You also can't get Gamepass on a PS. Console sales are driven by exclusives.
pjmlp 5y ago
It is the other way around, consoles are like this since they were introduced.

oblio 5y ago

Are consoles sold as general computing devices?

ryandrake 5y ago
Can you define a "general computing device" in a way that includes PCs and phones, but not game consoles?
- oblio 5y ago
  That's easy. Can you run spreadsheet programs, image editors, IDES, etc by default on consoles? Just approved software, no jailbreaks, hacks, etc.
  - wincy 5y ago
    I can’t run Xcode on my iPhone either even though that’s what I need to develop apps for my iPhone. Even more strangely I can’t run Xcode on the iPad Pro despite it literally running the same chip that runs Xcode on a cheaper device (the Mac Mini).
  - 5560675260 5y ago
    Yes, all of this is available via web browser.
    - oblio 5y ago
      Ah, nice, can I do any of that offline?
      - 5560675260 5y ago
        Well, you've asked if it's possible, not if it's practical and convenient under any circumstances.
        oblio 5y ago

mywittyname 5y ago

> So I am going to ask, how is this different from PS/Xbox/etc? Game consoles are specific-purpose computing devices: they play video games with a secondary use of running other entertainment apps (netflix). Phones are general purpose computing devices: they are use to do practically anything that a computer can do; check email, look up navigation, buy things online, check bank balance, create and edit photos/videos. There is an entire universe of apps that don't make sense on an Xbox. Why would your bank create an Xbox app, or why would Adobe port over a version of Photoshop for the Xbox? They wouldn't. And that's the difference between the two.

spideymans 5y ago
I'm not necessarily in favour of Apple here, but I do not find this to be a compelling argument. "General-purpose" is an artificial distinction. The idea of "general-purpose" devices do not exist in any legal sense. >Game consoles are specific-purpose computing devices: they play video games with a secondary use of running other entertainment apps (netflix). This is a circular argument. Game consoles are "specific-purpose" because they've been made to be "specific-purpose". The Xbox could be a perfectly adequate gaming PC had Microsoft not decided to artificially lock it down. There's no technical reasons why I shouldn't be able to plug an Xbox into a monitor and get real productivity done on the same machine I play games (like any gaming PC). An even better distinction: the Nintendo Switch. The Switch could easily function as a tablet PC had Nintendo not locked down the system. >There is an entire universe of apps that don't make sense on an Xbox. Why would your bank create an Xbox app, or why would Adobe port over a version of Photoshop for the Xbox? They wouldn't. And that's the difference between the two. And why is this where the line is drawn? I wouldn't put Xcode on my iPhone. Nor would I put Blender or Final Cut Pro. You certainly wouldn't run a web server on an iPhone. These are all things "general-purpose" computers are capable of. You've just drawn the line where it happens to be convenient for this argument. Edit: We should also consider the dangers of this argument too. If we codified what a "general-purpose" device is, the response from manufacturers would be to simply restrict the capabilities of their devices to not be "general-purpose". If banking apps and Photoshop are what makes a computer "general-purpose", then we'll see banking apps and Photoshop banned from platforms.

mthoms 5y ago

One holds your saved games. The other connects you to local emergency services, the global economy, your financial assets, your government, your family, your education, and increasingly - your health care provider. To suggest they should be treated the same is downright laughable. Yes, the underlying technology is similar, but their importance and impact on society is orders of magnitude different.

gjsman-1000 5y ago
From a legal perspective though, where this matters most, the law makes zero distinction between single purpose and general purpose computing devices whatsoever. Furthermore, they are all computers capable of running code from anywhere and the law views them as such. The distinction you are drawing that consoles are "specific" and iPhones are "general purpose" has no bearing in the law, nor in my opinion should it. From the law's perspective, the iPhone is on the same legal grounds as a PlayStation or Nintendo Switch. Frankly, I don't think the law should try to separate devices. Either this lock-in is legally permitted, for any manufacturer, or it's not permitted and all manufacturers must be open.
- mthoms 5y ago
  Strong disagree. We should regulate based on what's best for consumers and the free market. Consider that different classes of vehicles are regulated differently, even though they all rely on the same underlying technology. The law should serve the people, not some rigid doctrine.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    > We should regulate based on what's best for consumers and the free market. I agree completely, which is why hopefully Apple prevails. Their ecosystem is the best for Apple customers and the free market.
    - mthoms 5y ago
      That's a perfectly valid argument IMHO. The argument equating smart phones with consoles however, is downright silly. Can I ask, how does letting me have the option of occasionally purchasing songs, books, movies and character skins direct from vendors hurt your ability to enjoy the benefits of purchasing everything direct from Apple? I just don't understand how that would ruin the system for you. If anything, wouldn't it force Apple to improve their store in order to be more competitive? Would that not be a benefit to you?

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

>how is this different from PS/Xbox/etc? They aren't that different but I'm not sure this has been challenged yet. So perhaps that's the difference- nobody has yet challenged Microsoft's monopoly on the Xbox or Sony's monopoly on the Playstation. I would love these platforms to be opened up as well. The fact consoles are closed walled gardens too doesn't excuse Apple's App Store monopoly. Edit: From what I can gather there isn't anywhere near a billion total consoles in use worldwide however there is over a billion active iPhones in use right now: > Apple says there are now over 1 billion active iPhones, with 1.65 billion Apple devices in use overall. https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/27/22253162/iphone-users-total-number-billion-apple-tim-cook-q1-2021 https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/27/22253162/iphone-users-tot...

josephcsible 5y ago

I don't think it's different. I think game console makers are also being unfair and should open up their consoles.

paulmd 5y ago
Microsoft is a signatory to this suit and yet is explicitly arguing that they shouldn't have to open up their devices. It's a suit of convenience for everyone involved, nobody is making a principled stand for user freedoms here, they just want to pry open Apple's bank vault, and they don't care if user privacy (permissioning/app review, etc) gets shredded in the process. That the software freedom argument just happens to resonate with a lot of people who will sympathetically argue along with Microsoft and others as they continue to deny user freedoms is merely a bonus.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  > Microsoft is a signatory to this suit and yet is explicitly arguing that they shouldn't have to open up their devices. Can't I agree with Microsoft on some things but disagree on other things? > they don't care if user privacy (permissioning/app review, etc) gets shredded in the process. I don't think there actually has to be a tradeoff between privacy and freedom, but if there were, I'd pick freedom every time.
  - paulmd 5y ago
    Well, the dominant market player supports the approach you want. iOS controls about 15% of the global market, why should the force of law be used to extinguish an alternate user experience that some users want? Like, literally, you're trying to use the force of law to blot out an alternate user experience that you don't like, so that you can make a point about "user freedom". It's a pretty awful thing you're trying to do.
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      I'm not proposing that any user experience be extinguished. I'm fine with the Apple App Store being the default app store, and users being able to continue getting apps only through them and making all payments through them if they want to. I just don't think it should be forced even on people who don't want it.

deergomoo 5y ago

> when PS disabled Linux installation feature via update on consoles they had already sold, why shouldn't Apple be entitled to do the same Didn’t Sony lose a class-action for doing that?

paulmd 5y ago
No, they settled.