> What I can't understand is this argument that Apple specifically shouldn't be allowed to restrict software but game consoles should.

If it was upto me, I would even argue for fairer rules there. Right now, it is Apple and they are sitting on a much more important computing platform for developers in terms of value, so I am fine if companies concentrate their efforts on iOS. If a precedent comes from this that can be applied in other places, I am all for it.

> What I can't understand is this argument that Apple specifically shouldn't be allowed to restrict software but game consoles should.

Well, I didn't see anyone here saying that game consoles should restrict software they run. They are in the monopoly wagon as much as Apple.

Users should be allowed to run any software on their machine.

You can, if you wipe the content-specific platform.

Then there is still monopoly on that content-specific platform.

Think of it as if philips screwdriver producer forbid using those screwdrivers with posidriv heads (it is less efficient but works).

And there would be those that would say: "this is their product, they can dictate how it can be used".

I think you're lumping contractual EULAs with technical limitations and they're not the same thing.

If I bought a system that I am technically able to install anything I want onto, I don't think courts should enforce a EULA that forbids me from doing so.

But that doesn't mean I think the courts should forbid the manufacturer from implementing technical controls to stop unapproved software from being installed.

Those are two very different things, and the courts should treat them differently.

For one, there are consumers who buy iOS devices explicitly because they are hardened against unapproved software. Comparing the amount of malware on Android with what is on iOS proves that this is not an irrational decision.

I don't choose to buy a device like that, but I don't want courts saying that companies are not legally allowed to make such devices.

Is there? I bought a closed-platform device by choice.

I don't buy a Phillips screwdriver expecting it to work on a Robertson head because I think it should fit every case.

But you buy it to use it they way you see fit (I assume), not they way the producer did.

I still amazes me that people don't have problem with computer hardware+software being closed, enforced, EULA driven.

And at the same time they expect to be able to e.g. use knife to open a box and not only cut bread (enforced by EULA).

This is similar to what is happening right now with the right to repair of tractors.

I can use that screwdriver to try and hammer in a nail, sure. It probably won't work well and I'll likely break the screwdriver or the nail or the other purpose they're both serving.

That's not the fault of the company that designed, manufactured, and sold the screwdriver, though.

But they won't stop me from doing that either. But they did design the Phillips screwdriver to work optimally with Phillips head screws, so that's what I actually bought it for and use it for.

The EULA doesn't prevent you from wiping your iPhone and doing anything with it. It's your hardware. You won't see any warranty help after that, but that's not their problem at that stage. You can even try to use your iPhone as a hammer, but I wouldn't recommend that either. It wasn't designed that way, but you're totally free to do so.

Personally, I bought my phone to use it the way it was designed, because I liked the design—not in spite of it.

Where is the Robertson head that I can fit in my pocket and also runs iOS, though?

> Game consoles are general computing platforms as much as anything. Like Apple's devices they are artificially restricted with a walled garden model.

This is true that game consoles are walled gardens. But the question is, what is the market like for game consoles, when you compare common substitutes, as compared to what the market is like for smartphones.

I would argue that the game console market is much less concentrated than the smart phone market.

Anti-competitive practices are only illegal if a company has significant market power. And, IMO, Apple has much more market power than playstation, given that Apple controls about 50% of the smartphone market, in the USA.

> What I can't understand is this argument that Apple specifically shouldn't be allowed to restrict software but game consoles should.

The reason is because Apple controls half the smartphone market, in the USA, whereas game consoles don't have that much market power, especially, if one were to claim that the PC market competes with game consoles. (Which I say that it would. And I would also not say that smartphones compete with game consoles)

Apple's actions only become illegal, because of the combination of both their actions, and the fact that they have significant market power.

> Game consoles are general computing platforms as much as anything.

By their technical base, yes, but not by their usecase. Consoles have games and apps for media-consumption, but no apps for working, managing your life or other stuff. They are limited in the category of apps they allow, while smartphones and tablets are free for everything (even though they have some restrictions on the type of content they allow in their own app stores).

Your argument is circular. Game consoles don't have "apps for working, managing your life or other stuff" because they are controlled by a walled garden that prevents that kind of software from being developed. You're essentially saying "they're a walled garden, so they should be a walled garden".

Maybe your attention is circular, when you can't even think outside of a single comments.

The discussion is about smartphones, not consoles. And I explained that the technical base is irrelevant for whether it's a walled garden or not, because the purpose and usecase are different. Smartphones and Consoles are both universal computing platforms, but only consoles are also used as a universal device, while consoles are walled by design/purpose. So consoles being walled gardens has no relation to whether smartphones should or should not be walled gardens.

>Smartphones and Consoles are both universal computing platforms, but only consoles are also used as a universal device, while consoles are walled by design/purpose

This is a very loose concept that you are arguing should be law. Fine, smartphones are "universal computing" platforms. Tablets are mostly used for media consumption - is the iPad exempt? If a manufacturer releases a Windows PC and calls it a "Home Theater PC", are they now exempt from the "universal platform" rule? If Sony allows users to install other OSs on their PlayStation, the PlayStation now a "universal device"? If a developer releases a calendar application or Slack on the PS4, will the PS4 be converted to a "universal" device?

Or now that we have this carve out for "universal platforms" should Epic continue to pay the Apple 30% because it's a "gaming app"?

Your console carveout is completely arbitrary.

The judge in the case - an actual lawyer - disagrees with you.

Everyone knows judges and lawyers are widely respected among fisherman for their deep and nuanced understanding of bodies of water and the organisms that reside within them.

This argument is a fallacy as they all have assistants and do research before making their case/ruling. Replace tech and fishing with any activity you like and the fallacy remains and remains obvious as that.

If you think "a judge said [X] about tech issue [Y] so you should just take their word for it" is a valid way of arguing a point on HN, I don't know what to tell you :-)

That isn’t what I was arguing I’m arguing that it’s the job of judges and lawyers to be as informed as necessary and that they do their due diligence for each case. To pretend modern tech is an example of the one field where the people in charge of creating precedent can’t do that job is a fallacy.

Never did I say take their word for.

So if you don’t trust the court’s competence to decide legal matters around tech, why would you trust legislatures to pass laws? Are legislators smarter when it comes to tech?

[sarcasm noted]

I bet there are people on Law News somewhere who are silently reading HN shaking their heads about how the geeks don’t understand the nuances of the law....

The app stores for PSP, Vita and Switch happen to disagree.

The main selling point of game consoles are uniform hardware specs and knowing that the console can run all games released on it. That isn't true for phones.

Maybe not in the Android case, but in the iPhone case, it is pretty much true and there are clear ways to deal with the variances in capabilities between iPhone models. It's a much more predictable platform than for PCs or even Macs.

It isn't true in the iphone case either, they don't create a new appstore when they release new hardware generations so they don't check if apps works fine on older hardware nor do they guarantee that the software you buy in their appstore continues to work after updates. Instead it is up to the software provider to update things when Apple breaks their product and to inform the user of which phone can run the app.

PS4 plays the same games as ps4 pro, but has different specs

s/games/software and this could be a quote from 5 years ago about how nice it is to develop for iOS because of its uniform hardware and how long Apple supports their devices.

We can go back and forth naming differences between phones and consoles: phones are smaller and have cellular chips, consoles are usually connected to TVs -- but if you can't say why a difference is so fundamental that they should be treated as entirely different classes of things then it doesn't matter.

>We can go back and forth naming differences between phones and consoles: phones are smaller and have cellular chips, consoles are usually connected to TVs -- but if you can't say why a difference is so fundamental that they should be treated as entirely different classes of things then it doesn't matter.

Here's the fundamental bit:

For the vast majority, it's the primary (often only) way to connect with friends, family, colleagues, employers, news, government services, education, wayfinding, banking, emergency services, the entirety of the worlds information, and the world economy.

It also contains peoples most personal thoughts, search history, intimate conversations/photos, location history, political affiliations, and social graph.

For most of the disabled and/or isolated, it affords them a degree of dignity and inclusion that is life changing.

The above is doubly true in a post Covid world.

So, you can't artificially limit the discussion to technical similarities. The societal implications (the real fundamentals) should matter more than anything. Do you really want a world where we make our decisions based on what's best for society, or solely on what is technically true (smartphones and consoles are both just computers!)

We already treat things differently solely because of their importance to society, safety, health, and the economy. Yes, that does mean smartphones are, in a way, victims of their own success because they will be treated differently.

But that's not any different from other fundamental inventions in history (the printing press, banking, emergency services, automobiles, communications, etc).

NOTE: I'm not advocating for, or against, any specific policy. I'm only pointing out why equating consoles and smartphones is denying some very basic realties about how much the economy and society relies on smart phones (compared to consoles).

The vast majority of the world does not use smart phones.

And all of what you listed above applies to computers.

Your first point is not correct, there are about 3.5 billion smart phone users out there. https://www.bankmycell.com/blog/how-many-phones-are-in-the-w...

The vast majority of the world doesn't have toilets or running water. Yet we still consider those essential.

What are you talking about? The iphone appstore haven't had uniform hardware since 2008 when the second generation iphone was released.