"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
