I have seen this time after time, that when the question of Apple store comes up, a top-rated comment always makes a comparison with game consoles to argue it is all fair. I don't personally believe the comparison makes sense, but many on HN do. So I am going to ask, how is this different from PS/Xbox/etc? If the game consoles still 'own' the device after you have bought it, e.g. when PS disabled Linux installation feature via update on consoles they had already sold, why shouldn't Apple be entitled to do the same, to do as it pleases with the devices in perpetuity?
They aren't that different but I'm not sure this has been challenged yet. So perhaps that's the difference- nobody has yet challenged Microsoft's monopoly on the Xbox or Sony's monopoly on the Playstation.
I would love these platforms to be opened up as well. The fact consoles are closed walled gardens too doesn't excuse Apple's App Store monopoly.
Edit: From what I can gather there isn't anywhere near a billion total consoles in use worldwide however there is over a billion active iPhones in use right now:
> Apple says there are now over 1 billion active iPhones, with 1.65 billion Apple devices in use overall.
Not many companies are in the business of being fair or moral, usually it's about making money. Lawmakers have the power to force companies into being more fair (for whatever definition of "fair").
On the comparison between Apple and Sony, — objectively there is no difference except that they work in different markets and the devices they sell have slightly different purposes. If as a result of all of this Apple is forced to make their devices more general-purpose-like, it would be easier to insist that Sony should do the same.
Since the console gaming have already gotten the worst parts of the pc gaming, I don't think that bringing the positives to consoles is as threatening as you think.
> So I am going to ask, how is this different from PS/Xbox/etc?
Game consoles are specific-purpose computing devices: they play video games with a secondary use of running other entertainment apps (netflix).
Phones are general purpose computing devices: they are use to do practically anything that a computer can do; check email, look up navigation, buy things online, check bank balance, create and edit photos/videos.
There is an entire universe of apps that don't make sense on an Xbox. Why would your bank create an Xbox app, or why would Adobe port over a version of Photoshop for the Xbox? They wouldn't. And that's the difference between the two.
I'm not necessarily in favour of Apple here, but I do not find this to be a compelling argument.
"General-purpose" is an artificial distinction. The idea of "general-purpose" devices do not exist in any legal sense.
>Game consoles are specific-purpose computing devices: they play video games with a secondary use of running other entertainment apps (netflix).
This is a circular argument. Game consoles are "specific-purpose" because they've been made to be "specific-purpose". The Xbox could be a perfectly adequate gaming PC had Microsoft not decided to artificially lock it down. There's no technical reasons why I shouldn't be able to plug an Xbox into a monitor and get real productivity done on the same machine I play games (like any gaming PC).
An even better distinction: the Nintendo Switch. The Switch could easily function as a tablet PC had Nintendo not locked down the system.
>There is an entire universe of apps that don't make sense on an Xbox. Why would your bank create an Xbox app, or why would Adobe port over a version of Photoshop for the Xbox? They wouldn't. And that's the difference between the two.
And why is this where the line is drawn? I wouldn't put Xcode on my iPhone. Nor would I put Blender or Final Cut Pro. You certainly wouldn't run a web server on an iPhone. These are all things "general-purpose" computers are capable of. You've just drawn the line where it happens to be convenient for this argument.
Edit: We should also consider the dangers of this argument too. If we codified what a "general-purpose" device is, the response from manufacturers would be to simply restrict the capabilities of their devices to not be "general-purpose". If banking apps and Photoshop are what makes a computer "general-purpose", then we'll see banking apps and Photoshop banned from platforms.
Exactly. I keep seeing people saying "but iPhones are general purpose and consoles aren't so what Apple's doing is illegal!" and I'm like, where did you get that idea from? Where did you learn that meant anything? But I see it all the time all over the place.
The law, as you said, makes no distinction between these devices because they are all computers, and all computers are theoretically capable of running code from anywhere unless effort is taken to restrict that. Nor, in my opinion, should the law try to make a distinction because that would quickly become arbitrary or very messy as companies tried to qualify as non-general-purpose.
I agree. I'm sure Sony, Nintendo, and the MS Xbox division are paying close attention to all these App Store discussions. In some ways, the success of the Apple/Google app stores may lead to the general undoing of all app stores, consoles included.
As I mentioned somewhere else in this thread, the App Store situation is unique. Existing anti-trust doesn't really fit, and it's also not completely good or bad for consumers. I think Apple is taking a big risk here continuing to push the more heavy handed aspects, and all but inviting government (usually heavy handed) regulation.
> These are all things "general-purpose" computers are capable of. You've just drawn the line where it happens to be convenient for this argument.
That's basically the entire purpose of court decisions: to draw a line in the sand regarding what behavior is allowed. This is free speech; that is not. This is an illegal search; that is not. This is cruel & unusual punishment; that is not. This is tortuous negligence; that is not. So yes, I am drawing a line exactly where I think it should be.
The alternative is that there is no legal distinction between computing devices. So software in a car, laundry machine, POS terminal, phone, laptop, smart light, etc all share the same rules. So if a Windows laptop must be able to install arbitrary software, then Toyota needs allow for the same in their cars. And if Apple can lock down installation of software on their devices, then Dell is allowed to do the same (and if that's the case, can Intel do the same and only run certain code?).
A legal classification here is, IMHO, the preferred outcome of this case. Whatever the decision made here is, it will have very far reaching implications on technology. Though, if the case were to say that all computing systems are the same, I'd prefer Apple to lose and all computer systems be forced open, than allowed to be closed. Since having cheap video game consoles is not really worth the cost to society of allowing for locked down computer systems.
> If banking apps and Photoshop are what makes a computer "general-purpose", then we'll see banking apps and Photoshop banned from platforms.
Also, my argument is whether or not these types of apps "make sense," as in, a customer base exists for such apps on said platform that there is the market pressure to create one. Not whether not such apps are "allowed." It's certainly allowable to make such apps for the Xbox, there's just not a market to do so; it doesn't jibe with customers perceived uses of said devices. Customers want to check their bank account on their iPhones; they have no desire to do so on their Xbox.
The latest Xbox and PlayStation are literally just AMD PCs that support connecting a keyboard and mouse if you have one (and the Xbox running a locked down version of Windows ripe with APIs explicitly made to have general purpose apps run without rewrite from standard Windows even!) - the only thing not making them a general purpose computing device is the restrictions on what you can run. That the restrictions don't let you run general purpose computing isn't reasoning on why the restrictions are okay to be there in the first place.
Now one could argue the intent is they not be general purpose devices, but so could the intent of anyone not wanting competing stores. I'm not sure the intent of how manufacturers want users to use it factors in as such.
One argument that comes up often related to this set is consoles are sold at a loss (and iPhones are not) on the assumption profitability (not increased profits) will be made through purchases on the platform. This is more of an bona fide difference between phones and consoles but has it's own debate as well (which I'm not going to get into here as this is already veering pretty far off the article topic).
I can buy a game from a store as well. Or a friend. And sell my games as well. I can choose which console I buy to consume these games on. It's a game-centric system.
Sure, the path consoles are heading down will look like the current Apple situation very soon. And I think the same criticisms apply then, too.
Console games sold in stores pay a licensing fee to the console maker, so the maker still gets their 30%.
> I can choose which console I buy to consume these games on.
Not really? You can't play the new Demons' Souls on an Xbox, no matter how much you want to. You also can't get Gamepass on a PS. Console sales are driven by exclusives.
One holds your saved games. The other connects you to local emergency services, the global economy, your financial assets, your government, your family, your education, and increasingly - your health care provider.
To suggest they should be treated the same is downright laughable.
Yes, the underlying technology is similar, but their importance and impact on society is orders of magnitude different.
From a legal perspective though, where this matters most, the law makes zero distinction between single purpose and general purpose computing devices whatsoever. Furthermore, they are all computers capable of running code from anywhere and the law views them as such. The distinction you are drawing that consoles are "specific" and iPhones are "general purpose" has no bearing in the law, nor in my opinion should it.
From the law's perspective, the iPhone is on the same legal grounds as a PlayStation or Nintendo Switch. Frankly, I don't think the law should try to separate devices. Either this lock-in is legally permitted, for any manufacturer, or it's not permitted and all manufacturers must be open.
That's a perfectly valid argument IMHO. The argument equating smart phones with consoles however, is downright silly.
Can I ask, how does letting me have the option of occasionally purchasing songs, books, movies and character skins direct from vendors hurt your ability to enjoy the benefits of purchasing everything direct from Apple?
I just don't understand how that would ruin the system for you. If anything, wouldn't it force Apple to improve their store in order to be more competitive? Would that not be a benefit to you?
> The argument equating smart phones with consoles however, is downright silly.
Yea I’m kind of the opposite. I don’t really see the difference. An Xbox has many of the same apps, a web browser, etc.
> I just don't understand how that would ruin the system for you. If anything, wouldn't it force Apple to improve their store in order to be more competitive? Would that not be a benefit to you?
The App Store on iOS and how Apple manages it is effectively a collective bargaining agreement that individual users wouldn’t be all that effective in enforcing. Items like mandating what’s being tracked and how, allowing for anonymous sign-ins, and others are possible because Apple can bargain for users via their control of the App Store.
If you take away the App Store, it’s possible (idk how likely or not though I view it as extremely likely) that Apple I as the user lose that ability to collectively bargain. Companies like Facebook will migrate their apps to third party App Stores where Apple’s beneficial (in my view) rules and terms won’t be enforced. The network effect of apps moving to third party app stores will overwhelm the iOS App Store, and the benefits I enjoy will be largely unenforceable. There won’t be anybody who is even somewhat on my side. There won’t be some sort of competition between a privacy-first Facebook and data harvesting one. So we can’t really tell what users prefer.
Apple also creates a great user experience. One way to pay, a single App Store where everything is, and via their collective bargaining position I can mostly trust that they are trying to enforce rules around privacy, not let junk or scam apps in, etc. I know these rules are not always properly enforced, but they’re there.
So I view third-party app stores as not only not beneficial but hostile to the user experience I enjoy with the iPhone. I’m vehemently against those changes. I’d rather the App Store lose support from major Apps than Apple change how they’re doing things.
And this is kind of how things work on all platforms, stores, etc. There are more strong and loose rules, but I can’t just sell skins on the Epic game store for Fortnite, they don’t allow third-party integrations. I can’t sell apples I grow in my backyard at Wal-Mart either - they have a problem with that. For some reason since Apple makes the best phone and makes the most money people think they should be treated differently, and I don’t.
If users really value these things they’ll buy Android phones or jailbreak iPhones or demand Apple open up things. So far they aren’t. It’s a vocal minority - an absolutely tiny one, and the market seems to pretty clearly say that they prefer things how they are by buying iPhone.
You've articulated your argument very well with the "collective bargaining" metaphor. I like it.
I still strongly disagree that consoles and smart phones should be treated the same way by society just because the underlying hardware is more or less the same. I think we should start with a human-centric view. As in: if consoles disappeared tomorrow how much would the world change? Now what if smartphones did? How would that change the world?
If smartphones disappeared then the world would be entirely different. We are dependant on them for everything from personal and collective security, business and personal communication, to banking, to commerce, and access to knowledge.
Maybe I'm biased because I'm in my 40's and remember a time before smart phones existed, and before game consoles were commonplace. There is no comparison. None. Equating the two because the underlying electronics are the same entirely misses the forest for the trees. Though it's not entirely surprising that HN users would think this way - we tend to think of the underlying tech first and foremost.
Let me use a metaphor - Facebook and Google should be treated differently than a niche message board even though the underlying technology is the same. Right? They are both servers running compiled or interpreted code. They both connect to databases. They both allow users to communicate and share content.
The main difference is the impact they have on society.
Smartphones have become indispensable infrastructure for much of the world. Consoles are a luxury item.
Microsoft is a signatory to this suit and yet is explicitly arguing that they shouldn't have to open up their devices.
It's a suit of convenience for everyone involved, nobody is making a principled stand for user freedoms here, they just want to pry open Apple's bank vault, and they don't care if user privacy (permissioning/app review, etc) gets shredded in the process.
That the software freedom argument just happens to resonate with a lot of people who will sympathetically argue along with Microsoft and others as they continue to deny user freedoms is merely a bonus.
Well, the dominant market player supports the approach you want. iOS controls about 15% of the global market, why should the force of law be used to extinguish an alternate user experience that some users want?
Like, literally, you're trying to use the force of law to blot out an alternate user experience that you don't like, so that you can make a point about "user freedom". It's a pretty awful thing you're trying to do.
I'm not proposing that any user experience be extinguished. I'm fine with the Apple App Store being the default app store, and users being able to continue getting apps only through them and making all payments through them if they want to. I just don't think it should be forced even on people who don't want it.
Removing the requirement for app store review will extinguish the option for a curated user experience, as major apps will explicitly use sideloading/third party app stores to bypass the app review process and permissioning systems, just as they have already attempted. You literally are arguing for something with the immediately foreseeable consequence of removing the choice for a curated experience with applications required to undergo app review.
Again, you already have the choice for your user-freedom oriented experience on the dominant market platform with 85% global smartphone marketshare. Stop arguing to deny us the choice for this user experience.
But for you it's not enough to merely choose the experience you desire, you have to force it on me too.
The global split of 85% Android and 15% iOS is super misleading, since a lot of companies' primary customer base is Americans, and among Americans it's basically a 50/50 split.
And there's no reason that fixing this problem would allow bypassing permissioning systems. On Android, apps installed from third-party sources still need to have a list of permissions and request them the same way apps from the Play Store do.
> major apps will explicitly use sideloading/third party app stores to bypass the app review process and permissioning systems, just as they have already attempted.
And if this were true, then why do so many apps still use the Play Store on Android? Why haven't they all switched exclusively to third-party stores?
Is it misleading, or inconvenient to your argument?
50/50 still means you have a major choice that implements the user-freedom model that you desire, while you're arguing to extinguish the user-privacy model.
> And if this were true, then why do so many apps still use the Play Store on Android? Why haven't they all switched exclusively to third-party stores?
Play Store doesn't have an app review process, and yes, permissioning is a major problem there, the "flashlight app that wants network access and your contacts list" was a very real thing (until Android finally implemented a flashlight app) and continues to be a thing for other types of applications.
That's the thing app store review prevents on iOS, and the changes you're suggesting fundamentally undermine that process. When facebook removes themselves from the app store and creates their own so they can demand full permissions, the choice will become "give the permissions or stop using facebook" and that's a degradation of the iOS user experience, all for a nebulous argument that the app store cut is too much.
50% of all customers is way too much for most developers to be able to give up. And your arguments that gaining freedom will require losing privacy still haven't been convincing.
Whether or not you are personally convinced is irrelevant, the facts are that Facebook literally already has tried to do this and gotten their hand slapped for it.
The facts don't care about your feelings here - facebook and others have already attempted to exploit the limited mechanisms of sideloading available to violate user privacy, and they will do so again if given broader permissions.
You are directly arguing for the removal of the mechanism that was used to slap their hand.
Apple subsidizing the cost of iPhones with revenue from elsewhere in their walled-garden ecosystem would arguably be even more anticompetitive. Apple's competitors don't have the ecosystem advantage that would allow them to generate revenue from other parts of their business. Apple would be able to drive down their iPhone prices, while mainlining exceptional quality, which would be very difficult to compete against.
> Yet the anti-Nintendo sentiment in the country didn’t ultimately do much to help either of the two Ataris’ legal cases; the courts proved willing to buck that rising tide. In a landmark ruling against Tengen in March of 1991, Judge Fern Smith stated that Nintendo had the right to “exclude others” from the NES if they so chose, thus providing the legal soil on which many more walled gardens would be tilled in the years to come.
This was back in March 1991, mind you. The US courts decided that for some categories of things which compute, the manufacturer gets to control 100% of what runs on them. That makes them quite specific in my eyes.
I don't know the exact legal term, but that's what a walled garden amounts to. Yeah, you take a general computing architecture, and you lock it down by law. It doesn't need to be non-Turing complete or what have you to be "specific".
The difference is that Nintendo isn't a monopolist. When you are, you do not get as many rights to 'refuse to deal'. From the FTC itself "Under certain circumstances, there may be limits on this freedom for a firm with market power."
I can’t run Xcode on my iPhone either even though that’s what I need to develop apps for my iPhone. Even more strangely I can’t run Xcode on the iPad Pro despite it literally running the same chip that runs Xcode on a cheaper device (the Mac Mini).
I can't edit my comment. Console vendors don't envision consoles as general computing devices, which kind of tends to end any sparky comments one might make on the topic.
