3 ms·

To be clear I don’t think this is an acceptable practice, but the concept wouldn’t be completely unfamiliar because Nintendo did this with the NES and their loc

To be clear I don’t think this is an acceptable practice, but the concept wouldn’t be completely unfamiliar because Nintendo did this with the NES and their lockout chip/seal of quality system

noapologies 2y ago
I agree. Though to be fair Nintendo's NES is a gaming console (not that they are right, just contrasting the use-cases). Consider Apple's very own Mac - another general-purpose computing device like the iPhone, only in a different form-factor. Surely Mac developers must be tripping over themselves to throw 30% of their total revenue at Apple, as reward for their laser focus on privacy and security and for developing a nanny-platform that makes their users feel warm and fuzzy inside? Surely Mac users must not be allowed to do business with literally any entity in the world without involving Apple as the gatekeeper? Oh wait.
nox101 2y ago
The differences are scale and utility. A company that has control of such a large market gets different rules because of the power they weld. Apple's market is 1-2 billion people and affects 100,000+ companies. Nintendo's market is 2-3 orders of magnitude less and the number of companies affected is similarly much much smaller.
- account42 2y ago
  Plus a gaming console is for entertainment only while a smarphone is becoming almost a requirement for participation in modern society.
- wang_li 2y ago
  >Apple's market is 1-2 billion people and affects 100,000+ companies. It's a bit disingenuous to use customer base and the number of people who develop for the platform as a excuse to bring legal action against the company. Customers know what they were getting when they bought the phones and companies knew the rules when they chose to develop for the platform.
  - tech_ken 2y ago
    Is it? If there’s an effective duopoly on the entire market is that truly choice?
  - apple314159 2y ago
    I don't think users are fully aware of the extent these platforms control the devices. The same thing happened with cigarettes; eventually, the government required a warning. Perhaps a similar approach is necessary here.
- circuit10 2y ago
  I still think if you own a device you should be able to run whatever software you want on it, even if it's a game console from a somewhat smaller (but still huge) company
fennecfoxy 2y ago
I don't agree with it for games consoles as well, but a NES back then is completely different to a phone these days. Everybody uses a phone, for everything now.

To be clear I don’t think this is an acceptable practice, but the concept wouldn’t be completely unfamiliar because Nintendo did this with the NES and their lockout chip/seal of quality system

noapologies 2y ago

I agree. Though to be fair Nintendo's NES is a gaming console (not that they are right, just contrasting the use-cases). Consider Apple's very own Mac - another general-purpose computing device like the iPhone, only in a different form-factor. Surely Mac developers must be tripping over themselves to throw 30% of their total revenue at Apple, as reward for their laser focus on privacy and security and for developing a nanny-platform that makes their users feel warm and fuzzy inside? Surely Mac users must not be allowed to do business with literally any entity in the world without involving Apple as the gatekeeper? Oh wait.

nox101 2y ago

The differences are scale and utility. A company that has control of such a large market gets different rules because of the power they weld. Apple's market is 1-2 billion people and affects 100,000+ companies. Nintendo's market is 2-3 orders of magnitude less and the number of companies affected is similarly much much smaller.

account42 2y ago
Plus a gaming console is for entertainment only while a smarphone is becoming almost a requirement for participation in modern society.
wang_li 2y ago
>Apple's market is 1-2 billion people and affects 100,000+ companies. It's a bit disingenuous to use customer base and the number of people who develop for the platform as a excuse to bring legal action against the company. Customers know what they were getting when they bought the phones and companies knew the rules when they chose to develop for the platform.
- tech_ken 2y ago
  Is it? If there’s an effective duopoly on the entire market is that truly choice?
- apple314159 2y ago
  I don't think users are fully aware of the extent these platforms control the devices. The same thing happened with cigarettes; eventually, the government required a warning. Perhaps a similar approach is necessary here.
circuit10 2y ago
I still think if you own a device you should be able to run whatever software you want on it, even if it's a game console from a somewhat smaller (but still huge) company

fennecfoxy 2y ago

I don't agree with it for games consoles as well, but a NES back then is completely different to a phone these days. Everybody uses a phone, for everything now.