4 ms·

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 "g

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.

gjsman-1000 5y ago
Exactly. I keep seeing people saying "but iPhones are general purpose and consoles aren't so what Apple's doing is illegal!" and I'm like, where did you get that idea from? Where did you learn that meant anything? But I see it all the time all over the place. The law, as you said, makes no distinction between these devices because they are all computers, and all computers are theoretically capable of running code from anywhere unless effort is taken to restrict that. Nor, in my opinion, should the law try to make a distinction because that would quickly become arbitrary or very messy as companies tried to qualify as non-general-purpose.
- matwood 5y ago
  I agree. I'm sure Sony, Nintendo, and the MS Xbox division are paying close attention to all these App Store discussions. In some ways, the success of the Apple/Google app stores may lead to the general undoing of all app stores, consoles included. As I mentioned somewhere else in this thread, the App Store situation is unique. Existing anti-trust doesn't really fit, and it's also not completely good or bad for consumers. I think Apple is taking a big risk here continuing to push the more heavy handed aspects, and all but inviting government (usually heavy handed) regulation.
mywittyname 5y ago
> 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. That's basically the entire purpose of court decisions: to draw a line in the sand regarding what behavior is allowed. This is free speech; that is not. This is an illegal search; that is not. This is cruel & unusual punishment; that is not. This is tortuous negligence; that is not. So yes, I am drawing a line exactly where I think it should be. The alternative is that there is no legal distinction between computing devices. So software in a car, laundry machine, POS terminal, phone, laptop, smart light, etc all share the same rules. So if a Windows laptop must be able to install arbitrary software, then Toyota needs allow for the same in their cars. And if Apple can lock down installation of software on their devices, then Dell is allowed to do the same (and if that's the case, can Intel do the same and only run certain code?). A legal classification here is, IMHO, the preferred outcome of this case. Whatever the decision made here is, it will have very far reaching implications on technology. Though, if the case were to say that all computing systems are the same, I'd prefer Apple to lose and all computer systems be forced open, than allowed to be closed. Since having cheap video game consoles is not really worth the cost to society of allowing for locked down computer systems. > If banking apps and Photoshop are what makes a computer "general-purpose", then we'll see banking apps and Photoshop banned from platforms. Also, my argument is whether or not these types of apps "make sense," as in, a customer base exists for such apps on said platform that there is the market pressure to create one. Not whether not such apps are "allowed." It's certainly allowable to make such apps for the Xbox, there's just not a market to do so; it doesn't jibe with customers perceived uses of said devices. Customers want to check their bank account on their iPhones; they have no desire to do so on their Xbox.

gjsman-1000 5y ago

Exactly. I keep seeing people saying "but iPhones are general purpose and consoles aren't so what Apple's doing is illegal!" and I'm like, where did you get that idea from? Where did you learn that meant anything? But I see it all the time all over the place. The law, as you said, makes no distinction between these devices because they are all computers, and all computers are theoretically capable of running code from anywhere unless effort is taken to restrict that. Nor, in my opinion, should the law try to make a distinction because that would quickly become arbitrary or very messy as companies tried to qualify as non-general-purpose.

matwood 5y ago
I agree. I'm sure Sony, Nintendo, and the MS Xbox division are paying close attention to all these App Store discussions. In some ways, the success of the Apple/Google app stores may lead to the general undoing of all app stores, consoles included. As I mentioned somewhere else in this thread, the App Store situation is unique. Existing anti-trust doesn't really fit, and it's also not completely good or bad for consumers. I think Apple is taking a big risk here continuing to push the more heavy handed aspects, and all but inviting government (usually heavy handed) regulation.

mywittyname 5y ago

> 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. That's basically the entire purpose of court decisions: to draw a line in the sand regarding what behavior is allowed. This is free speech; that is not. This is an illegal search; that is not. This is cruel & unusual punishment; that is not. This is tortuous negligence; that is not. So yes, I am drawing a line exactly where I think it should be. The alternative is that there is no legal distinction between computing devices. So software in a car, laundry machine, POS terminal, phone, laptop, smart light, etc all share the same rules. So if a Windows laptop must be able to install arbitrary software, then Toyota needs allow for the same in their cars. And if Apple can lock down installation of software on their devices, then Dell is allowed to do the same (and if that's the case, can Intel do the same and only run certain code?). A legal classification here is, IMHO, the preferred outcome of this case. Whatever the decision made here is, it will have very far reaching implications on technology. Though, if the case were to say that all computing systems are the same, I'd prefer Apple to lose and all computer systems be forced open, than allowed to be closed. Since having cheap video game consoles is not really worth the cost to society of allowing for locked down computer systems. > If banking apps and Photoshop are what makes a computer "general-purpose", then we'll see banking apps and Photoshop banned from platforms. Also, my argument is whether or not these types of apps "make sense," as in, a customer base exists for such apps on said platform that there is the market pressure to create one. Not whether not such apps are "allowed." It's certainly allowable to make such apps for the Xbox, there's just not a market to do so; it doesn't jibe with customers perceived uses of said devices. Customers want to check their bank account on their iPhones; they have no desire to do so on their Xbox.