> I also think there is a difference between consoles and general purpose devices that have not being properly explored by anyone and at some point should be id

> I also think there is a difference between consoles and general purpose devices that have not being properly explored by anyone and at some point should be identified by the law. I disagree and would say that today the difference between these devices is arbitrary. Game console manufacturers don't allow Outlook or Google Docs or whatever on their stores, but there's no reason they couldn't be there. Their absolute control over their platform is no different than Apple's except that Apple is less restrictive. > Consoles might need to be fixed too: for some reason, digital items cost the same or more than the physical counterpart, but provide you with less (can't re-sell, can't lend). And this doesn't take into account yet the fact that digital libraries will disappear when people die (can't leave to family your account, in theory). So consoles are not a good example, they are the most abusive ones. I am by no means defending this practice in consoles. I'm objecting to carving out an exception for them. If you believe that phones should be more open as platforms then you should also believe that the consoles should be too.