hmm. it doesn't seem all that different from sony or microsoft subsizing the cost of gaming consoles and then locking down what can run on them so they can reco

hmm. it doesn't seem all that different from sony or microsoft subsizing the cost of gaming consoles and then locking down what can run on them so they can recoup those costs by getting a slice of the game sales. nor is it all that different from apple or google dumping millions and millions into ios and android os/base level platform development, software update/delivery infrastructure and proactive platform security and then recouping those costs on sales and in-app purchases through the app stores. it's been going on since the original nintendo entertainment system with its approval process. prior to that was the atari 2600 debacle, where the platform languished and the ecosystem of software was such crap that people just sort of gave up on it. that said, are they a form of monopoly? it certainly amortizes the costs of developing hardware and os platforms to the point that consumers are willing to buy in, but it also results in undue control over the resulting platforms. hard to say... i think it all comes down to how that control is wielded... (and without it, it's the atari 2600 all over again) only alternatives i can think of are to regulate the platforms for fairness or force platform vendors to offer full price/off contract versions of their hardware.