There is a distinction between a general purpose computing device and a gaming console. I depend on my computer for important aspects of my life, not just entertainment.
I perceive capricious behaviour like this ad a threat to my liberty and well-being.
One could argue that you bought your PC and the Windows license that comes with it because it's general purpose. And you would have paid less money if you knew it was going to lock you in.
Don't get me wrong, I hate the idea of "digital anti-globalism", but if this thing went to court, both sides would have their reasonable arguments. And let's hope that if there's a ruling, it rules in favor of open platforms. At the very least, I think it would be great if the courts rule that a platform that's built open and sold as open cannot be consequently closed. But I doubt that Apple will be forced to open its hardware to non-App Store programs.
> One could argue that you bought your PC and the Windows license that comes with it because it's general purpose. And you would have paid less money if you knew it was going to lock you in.
And in fact Microsoft tried this (both with Windows RT and Windows 10 S) and in both cases few people bought in (or, in some cases, wound up 'confused' that other software wouldn't run, leading to the eventual sunsetting of Windows 10 S).
I do think both sides have reasonable arguments, but at the same time 'computing' has become ubiquitous, and Smartphones arguably even more so. Personally, I think we are in a weird state when we consider historical context; once upon a time, remember that GM would in fact make moves to ensure they did not get too much market share. I can't remember the number but I think they didn't want to go over 59%.
Of course you COULD have more market share even back then, but it also typically resulted in a lot more government oversight and willingness for the government to intervene in situations like this (thinking about Modems and Ma Bell here...)
IMO Google sidesteps the problem by not having a lot of 'handset' market share. (Also, perhaps more controversial to state, but their compliance with LE/Intelligence agencies probably allows more things to be ignored.)
I just don't know what to say anymore. Apple (and, dare I say, to a greater extent, Google) are doing the sorts of things that absolutely landed Microsoft in court and caused microsoft to make a number of decisions that kneecapped them in the first decade of the 2000s. It's been happening for years, and yet we are only now seeing enough people agreeing that we can talk about it without getting shouted down.
> And in fact Microsoft tried this (both with Windows RT and Windows 10 S) and in both cases few people bought in (or, in some cases, wound up 'confused' that other software wouldn't run, leading to the eventual sunsetting of Windows 10 S).
It’s funny to me that One of Microsoft's strongest arguments is “well we tried it and consumers don’t want it that way unless forced upon them”.
Why did you put "confused" in quotes? It's pretty obvious why people who bought Windows computers would be confused when Windows software doesn't work on it.
I agree with this sentiment... But I wonder if Apple considers iPhones to be general purpose computing devices, or even wants them to be. They're not marketed that way, likely most users are uninterested in using an iPhone this way.
A separate concern is around anticompetitive behavior. There is no way to sideload an app, or even use a competing app store, and Apple is charging rent. This is pretty clearly anticompetitive behavior that harms consumers.
> I agree with this sentiment... But I wonder if Apple considers iPhones to be general purpose computing devices, or even wants them to be. They're not marketed that way, likely most users are uninterested in using an iPhone this way.
But iPads (though iOS was renamed/forked to iPadOS on those devices) are definitely marketed as general purpose computing devices. The headline on https://www.apple.com/ipad/ is "Your next computer is not a computer".
iPad/iPadOS have these same restrictions as iPhone/iOS.
While it looks like kortilla was being downvoted for their reply quoting back "is not a computer", I think it's actually completely on point. To date, Apple has consistently treated iOS devices -- including the iPad -- as "application consoles," not open computing platforms. It's not just that applications can only officially be installed through the App Store, but that applications are "boxed in" both literally (i.e., sandboxing) and metaphorically (no practical way to run development tools and, from appearances, no interest on Apple's part in changing that).
I'm not arguing this is necessarily either wise or ethical of them, and there's a real sense in which this is orthogonal to the App Store's fee structure. But it seems to me that while Apple is going to face increasing pressure to change the way they run the App Store, the solution -- at least the solution Apple will offer -- very likely won't involve letting the iPad become a general purpose computer the way the Mac is.
Not to mention that the transition to Apple Silicon will lead to the total integration of the Mac App Store into the iOS store, so these policies are going to merge at some point and literally apply to general computers too
I would be thrilled to learn that Apple plans to prevent anyone from running non-Apple-signed code on the Mac, because it would likely lead to better tools for writing iDevice-targetted software on non-Mac platforms (either officially supported, or jury-rigged by third parties out of necessity). As a Linux desktop user with an iPhone, this would inevitably benefit me (I don't write iPhone software right now, but if there was an iPhone compiler for Linux, I might start).
Why do you think Microsoft bothered with WSL? We know that most Windows users won't do it. It was a developer-attracting move, meant to make it easier to build Windows client applications with Linux server components. Apple benefits from the same thing being offered natively. I can't see them abandoning it, even though it does create a tension between the Mac as a consumer product and the Mac as a developer's tool for iOS.
It's also going to require mandatory brain microchips to ensure all of the user's thoughts conform to Apple policies /s
All of this is still unknown outside of Apple. What is known so far seems to me like it's pointing in the direction of a pretty open macOS and a very much locked down iOS, to satisfy different needs. We'll know more by late fall, I guess.
I depend on my phone for a lot more important aspects of my life than my laptop. Seems pretty obvious to me, there are apps for pretty much anything I could want to do, and I believe it's the more secure platform by far, plus I have it on me pretty much always.
Why would there be a difference in treatment for entertainment vs general purpose? Both are devices that I’ve bought, so I should be able to use them as I see fit.
"There is a distinction between a general purpose computing device and a gaming console." Whats the distinction? gaming console use x86 now. is it the keyboard support? the gpu ?
Well, you could say one definition is that a general purpose computing device is a tool that lets you run what you want in whichever way you want to install it (sort of, of course one could nitpick exceptions).
An Apple laptop looks like a general purpose computing device. Do we want it not to be one, and become closer to a gaming console?
I think that merely looking at the guts and seeing which processor it has is kind of a red herring.
> Well, you could say one definition is that a general purpose computing device is a tool that lets you run what you want in whichever way you want to install it (sort of, of course one could nitpick exceptions).
It does seem a bit tautological. A vendor can restrict access then simply argue this is not a general purpose computing device because look, you can't run the things we don't let you run.
It seems tautological but if you think about it, it's what it actually means. A general purpose computing device is a device that can be used for any computing. If you restrict it, it ceases to be general purpose. If you turn it into a locked-up appliance, like a Playstation, it's not general-purpose anymore.
General-purpose is when you can install whatever software will run in that architecture, unimpeded.
I don't necessarily disagree, but does that imply that whether or not something is a general purpose computer is reliant on the current software status of the machine rather than the hardware? You can crack some smartphones or install Linux on older Playstations.
Tautological was in reference to the argument about whether or not we should be able to install things if an iPhone is a general purpose device.
If that status relies on what software lets us do, then the answer is always going to be no, because if they don't let us then we aren't allowed to.
Ah, now I see what you mean. Good question. I'd say the hardware within is general purpose, but the overall "product" isn't because it has been artificially constrained.
I think the definition has always been a bit gray, even more so in recent years but I don't think it's about the hardware present in the device. For example, Sony made a push to classify the PS2 as a computer by providing a BASIC interpreter and later a distribution of Linux to evade some tax laws in Europe.
I think if I were to answer this question now it would be based on the expectation of the end consumer to be expected to, or have the ability to program the device for general purpose tasks.
Things like game consoles, phones, smart appliances, etc. all start to blur that line but I think it comes down to the consumer's expectations.
What its marketed as and who it is aimed at. Nobody ever bought a nintendo NES to use as a personal computing device, it wasn’t that they looked at the specsheet and it had a 6502. There were in fact PCs with 6502s and powerpcs as well. In any case, I still think video game consoles are stupid but they at least have some incentives to do a walled garden type thing (anti-cheat, anti-piracy) and lacking general code execution they actually stand a reasonable chance of accomplishing that (versus iOS where I am currently typing on a jailbroken device.)
> Nobody ever bought a nintendo NES to use as a personal computing device
Although interestingly, the Japanese console makers have continually tried to push the computer/development angle.
When the NES was released in Japan before the US, it was branded the "Family Computer" and you could get a keyboard and a version of BASIC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_BASIC
I perceive capricious behaviour like this ad a threat to my liberty and well-being.