Until not too long ago, the PS3 Store was a desert. There were some small games, but no blockbuster titles. This has only changed relatively recently, probably because the App Store is so popular.

It is a huge step backward. Before I could borrow games from friends or sell them. But I think there won't be a big outcry as long as most games are still available on a disk.

On the other hand the price paid for games has dropped massively, especially when indexed against inflation. Partly this is helped by digital distribution, but by creating a more direct relationship between the publisher and the customer, and drastically reducing piracy and eliminating reselling the required price per unit to make a profit as a game studio is really small. I've paid $5 for iOS games that gave me vastly more hours of enjoyment than games that I used to pay $50+ for.

For years those who supported the developers were subsidizing those who weren't. This is happening less now, and it's a more efficient market.

That's a good point. I probably bought more games from small indie developers on iOS the last few years than PS3 titles. Those indies wouldn't have access to the PS3 market.

Videogame consoles for the longest time have been a closed ecosystem. Steam is merely one way of adding computer games to a pc.

For the iphone the appstore is the only way to add applications. No one would care if they allowed competing marketplaces.

Yes, but that was exactly my point. Video game consoles have been around for ages, are closed ecosystems, and no one minds. The App Store decides to do this for phones (which were at the time, pretty closed ecosystems anyway) and everyone gets upset. What is the difference?

Windows Mobile, Palm OS, hell even later versions of Blackberry. None of these were closed in terms of app installation. Smartphones were not closed ecosystems, in fact, the point of them was to be open in this way.

I guess I was thinking more of non-smart mobile phones, since that was what most people used before the iPhone. But even so, it doesn't explain why other closed devices have been, and remain closed with no complaints.

Why do we not express the same discontent over a PS3? Or any other closed environment? I don't think it's because smartphones were "open" before the iPhone.

> Why do we not express the same discontent over a PS3? Or any other closed environment? I don't think it's because smartphones were "open" before the iPhone.

Two reasons:

1. The device that plays games is a lot less important than the ubiquitous pocket computer (and for some only general purpose computer).

2. Games, more-so than other software, benefit from the walled garden / curated approach. Nintendo more or less proved this out decades ago when they entered the console market.

1. But to game developers it is their most important device. I am a developer who would love to be able to test and publish my games on those platforms — but I don't mind that they keep the platform closed, because I feel it adds value to the games currently on there. (Developers are the main group concerned with the issue of open vs. closed.)

2. I would argue that your point also applies to the best apps on the App Store. The super-polished, simple and focused experiences that people love. They are hardly complex software, they are just well-thought-out design wise. By taking a curated approach you prevent the crud from building up.

I see it as similar to a fashionable clothing store — they buy all their clothes for cheap just like everyone else. The value they offer is in their curation and taste.

(In my mind Apple is not strict enough with their curation, which dilutes the value of their store. But I realise I am in the minority with this opinion.)

I think Microsoft are partially to blame for the existence of these app stores. By ignoring package management they created an environment where software was hard to manage and frustrating to install for users.

I don't think I've ever met anyone over the age of 40, from a non-technical background, that has ever checked for service updates to a piece of non-Microsoft software, downloaded it, and then installed it. To this day most people don't bother beyond Windows Updates (and only install those because Windows screams at them about it).

I've met plenty of Windows 8 users who haven't noticed 8.1 is out.

People took issue mainly because the App Store is the only way to get apps on iOS devices. And they took even more issue with the often random and vague rejections.

My example of the PS3 was the same as iOS — Sony is the only way to get games on the PS3. People don't seem to have an issue with this like they have an issue with the App Store. In fact, the same thing applies to the NES. No one seemed to complain until it was the App Store. Why is the expectation different?

I have mostly found the rejections I encountered from Apple to be good things (I've had about 8 - 10 app rejections over the years). They have always led to me improving the app for the customer (e.g., include battery warnings, make text more visible, ensure app complies with child privacy laws, don't include placeholder artwork, and so on).

The App Store's curation is one of the things that increases its value. Even though developers hate it (and perhaps feel slightly disrespected by it?). I'd argue that its been a good thing.