3 ms·

I don't really know that I agree with the analogy. Yes, you're kind of right, I don't really have a problem with not being able to easily sideload stuff on my

I don't really know that I agree with the analogy. Yes, you're kind of right, I don't really have a problem with not being able to easily sideload stuff on my oven or dishwasher, despite the fact that they technically have computers in them. They are highly specific, single-purpose things and sideloading Doom on there doesn't really make sense. Even a game console is still more or less single purpose (though that line is being blurred). Historically I don't do much on my console other than playing games, though now I'd argue that that's not necessarily true, since people install a lot of apps in the marketplace (e.g. Netflix). I do have a problem with Apple TV's being locked down, which is why I didn't purchase one. I use Nvidia Shield TVs, largely so that I could sideload ScummVM without any kind of jailbreaking nonsense. However, I'd argue that a smartphone/tablet is different. This isn't the 90's; you use your "phone" for a lot more than taking calls. I have an SSH client, a git client, word processing, web browsing, nearly everything that a 90's-era computer could do on my iPhone; if we're going to say that Microsoft Windows is "general purpose", then iOS/iPadOS qualifies as well. We took Microsoft to court for anticompetitive practices, particularly in regards to the inability to install third-party browsers. You can't really install third party browsers on iOS either. You can install Firefox or Chrome on there (and I do), but they're just frontends for iOS's internal Webkit engine. So I don't know that the appliance comparison works. iPhones are (purposefully) not single-purpose. They're computers.

its_ethan 3y ago
The way that an iPhone is different from a Nintendo Switch is arbitrary though. If you're talking about changing laws it'd be nice to have more of a defense than "this computer we call a phone should be treated differently than the computer we call a Gameboy". Without some clear and useable definitions, there's no precedents that can be set and leveraged. You will also, by necessity, require bureaucratic bloat to decide what counts and what doesn't for every device moving forward. At best, this is a slow process that delays innovation and reduces availability for users.
- tombert 3y ago
  Sure, but we draw distinctions like that all the time. There's generally legal differences between "E-Bikes" and "Motorcycles", despite the fact that they're nominally pretty similar (two wheeled, self-powered transportation). We draw distinctions between "phone lines" and "power lines", despite the fact that both carry electric current. We draw distinctions between "bread" and "alcohol", despite the fact that both are made the same way. I'd argue that while there isn't a hard line in the sand, we more or less define "computer" as something that's "general purpose". I don't consider my oven a "computer", I don't consider my digital COVID test a computer, I don't consider my key fob a computer. I do consider my Macbook a computer, because I do a lot of dissimilar things with it; I write documents, I watch videos, I listen to music, I play games, I log into servers, I VoIP chat with friends, I edit video, etc. I don't think anyone disputes that a Macbook is a "computer"; if nothing else all of that applies to Linux and Windows as well. You know what else it applies to? An iPhone. I can do all those things with an iPhone. I really can't do any of those things (besides play games) on a GameBoy. Of course, admittedly I'm kind of moving the goalpost, because of course the line of "general purpose" is kind of arbitrary; the Gameboy did have a camera, the Gameboy Advance had a TV Tuner and MP3 player, so you're absolutely right that it would require some kind of bureaucratic overhead to define what "general purpose" even means, and moreover the second that they have a definition the companies will use that as a guide to narrowly skirt it and therefore avoid regulation. I don't know the solution, but I do know that it feels a bit dirty for Apple to feel entitled to so much money when they're not even the ones distributing the apps at that point. People gave so much shit to Unity for their idiotic "install fee", but people have become bizarrely defensive of Apple for doing basically the same thing.
  - burnerthrow008 3y ago
    > There's generally legal differences between "E-Bikes" and "Motorcycles", despite the fact that they're nominally pretty similar (two wheeled, self-powered transportation). We draw distinctions between "phone lines" and "power lines", despite the fact that both carry electric current. We draw distinctions between "bread" and "alcohol", despite the fact that both are made the same way. But there a technical differences between those classes of things, even if the lines are drawn arbitrarily. A motorcycle has more than a certain amount of power. A “power line” carries a voltage which is too high to be considered “intrinsically safe”. Alcohol has intoxicating effects, while bread does not. What is the difference between an iPhone and a Switch? We call one a phone and the other a game. If I made an Android phone with less computing power than a switch, can I call it a game? Or is it still a phone? > You know what else it applies to? An iPhone. I can do all those things with an iPhone. I really can't do any of those things (besides play games) on a GameBoy. But that is only because Nintendo doesn’t allow it. There’s no technical reason a Switch can’t be a phone. Why is ok for Nintendo to do that, but not Apple? Just “dirty vibes”? That’s not how the law is supposed to work.

its_ethan 3y ago

The way that an iPhone is different from a Nintendo Switch is arbitrary though. If you're talking about changing laws it'd be nice to have more of a defense than "this computer we call a phone should be treated differently than the computer we call a Gameboy". Without some clear and useable definitions, there's no precedents that can be set and leveraged. You will also, by necessity, require bureaucratic bloat to decide what counts and what doesn't for every device moving forward. At best, this is a slow process that delays innovation and reduces availability for users.

tombert 3y ago
Sure, but we draw distinctions like that all the time. There's generally legal differences between "E-Bikes" and "Motorcycles", despite the fact that they're nominally pretty similar (two wheeled, self-powered transportation). We draw distinctions between "phone lines" and "power lines", despite the fact that both carry electric current. We draw distinctions between "bread" and "alcohol", despite the fact that both are made the same way. I'd argue that while there isn't a hard line in the sand, we more or less define "computer" as something that's "general purpose". I don't consider my oven a "computer", I don't consider my digital COVID test a computer, I don't consider my key fob a computer. I do consider my Macbook a computer, because I do a lot of dissimilar things with it; I write documents, I watch videos, I listen to music, I play games, I log into servers, I VoIP chat with friends, I edit video, etc. I don't think anyone disputes that a Macbook is a "computer"; if nothing else all of that applies to Linux and Windows as well. You know what else it applies to? An iPhone. I can do all those things with an iPhone. I really can't do any of those things (besides play games) on a GameBoy. Of course, admittedly I'm kind of moving the goalpost, because of course the line of "general purpose" is kind of arbitrary; the Gameboy did have a camera, the Gameboy Advance had a TV Tuner and MP3 player, so you're absolutely right that it would require some kind of bureaucratic overhead to define what "general purpose" even means, and moreover the second that they have a definition the companies will use that as a guide to narrowly skirt it and therefore avoid regulation. I don't know the solution, but I do know that it feels a bit dirty for Apple to feel entitled to so much money when they're not even the ones distributing the apps at that point. People gave so much shit to Unity for their idiotic "install fee", but people have become bizarrely defensive of Apple for doing basically the same thing.
- burnerthrow008 3y ago
  > There's generally legal differences between "E-Bikes" and "Motorcycles", despite the fact that they're nominally pretty similar (two wheeled, self-powered transportation). We draw distinctions between "phone lines" and "power lines", despite the fact that both carry electric current. We draw distinctions between "bread" and "alcohol", despite the fact that both are made the same way. But there a technical differences between those classes of things, even if the lines are drawn arbitrarily. A motorcycle has more than a certain amount of power. A “power line” carries a voltage which is too high to be considered “intrinsically safe”. Alcohol has intoxicating effects, while bread does not. What is the difference between an iPhone and a Switch? We call one a phone and the other a game. If I made an Android phone with less computing power than a switch, can I call it a game? Or is it still a phone? > You know what else it applies to? An iPhone. I can do all those things with an iPhone. I really can't do any of those things (besides play games) on a GameBoy. But that is only because Nintendo doesn’t allow it. There’s no technical reason a Switch can’t be a phone. Why is ok for Nintendo to do that, but not Apple? Just “dirty vibes”? That’s not how the law is supposed to work.