[scarface74]

What makes a console less of a “General purpose computer” than a phone?

Again. Just like consoles and the Roku - the console makers get a cut of every game sold - even physical games. At one point, Nintendo limited the number of titles third party companies could publish and force them to use their manufacturing facilities.

No retailer just sells things at a markup that covers costs.

[jollins]

A video game console isn't used for programming, video production, writing, homework, etc. You know what I mean. The fact that they are specially packaged PC parts is beside the point.

You keep bringing up video game distribution though, so let's roll with it. Pretend all of software was like video game distribution. How much worse would software be for users? Imagine FOSS on that.

[odshoifsdhfs]

Well, taking in account that a console is a computer, running an OS, I would call it a general computer. Just because people don't port emacs to it doesn't make it less than a computer.

And in effect, I did create a editor for scripts to run on the Xbox 360 many years ago so QA could tweak things, so it is possible, but developers just publish games. If the only 'apps' developed for the iPhone were games, would it stop being a general purpose computer then?

Also, didn't the PS3 have an official linux bistro for a while? Blue something?

[scarface74]

And a phone isn’t “specially packaged” and is used for “video production, writing and homework”?

Software would be better for the average user if PCs (and Macs) had tighter permission models - no viruses, spyware, adware, ransomware, surreptitiously reading your contacts without your permission, etc.

[kinjba11]

I think most can agree the OS should sandbox apps appropriately, and allow access via permissions and such. But like most things, it can be taken too far. The fact is you can't buy a console or iPhone of the shelf and easily (or legally) run your software on it without special permission from Apple or Sony etc.

The distinction is video game consoles are not general purpose. Just like nobody is going to write an essay on an Pinball machine, nobody will (ordinarily) do so on a console. If a game developer need to follow special rules to get into the console market, that's par for the course.

In contrast, on Windows/Linux/Mac/Android I can run whatever software I damn well like without talking to Microsoft/Canonical/Google/etc. It is truly 'general purpose'. There is no required gatekeeper for these systems (as much as they are try to make themselves one). iOS stands in contrast to these - it is not 'general purpose' if I can't run whatever. If Apple decides some software is not allowed on the store that is not 'general purpose'. That is something else - gatekeeping. So when they advertise 'general purpose' that is only true until they decide they don't like something. And they can change their rules anytime they want.

To the 30% thing, every retail store has markups they don't advertise and that's perfectly fine. If Apple or a retailer wants to charge me for access to their store, I'm happy to pay.

But when they force a change to a product and company in arbitrary ways to suite their whims that's pretty concerning because it's a sign they are abusing their power in a very historically been-done-before way. Think about it - 50-100% of a target market is controlled by them. You can do whatever you want - why not charge 50%? 70%? There is no competition - it's literally whatever the highest is you think your PR department can get away with. Not sure how you feel about anti-trust, but sure feels like abuse to me.

[scarface74]

But when they force a change to a product and company in arbitrary ways to suite their whims that's pretty concerning because it's a sign they are abusing their power in a very historically been-done-before way.

You mean how Walmart forced the music industry to edit CDs or they wouldn’t sell them or how they force manufacturers to sell crappier versions of their products to meet a price point?

Or do you mean again how Nintendo is infamous about the strict content controls they have on games and have since the 16 bit days and no blood in Mortal Kombat?

Also, see how movie theater chains are saying that they won’t show studio’s movies if they start releasing straight to consumers now even though most movie theaters are closed?

We could also mention GameStop threatening not to sell MS consoles this generation because of their original intention to make games harder to resell.

[jollins]

Why do you keep bringing up examples of other corporations acting like jerks to excuse Apple acting like a jerk?

[kelnos]

That's true, but that sort of sandboxing and permission models do not require a gatekeeping corporation to seek rent from everyone who wants to build for the platform. In fact it requires no interaction from the corporation at all.

iOS's app sandboxing and permissions model would work just as well if apps could be sideloaded.

[scarface74]

Sandboxing won’t stop shady and illegal developers. Neither will review. The story of what happens to a platform when you allow any crap on it goes back as far as the original Atari 2600 to Android that has four times the market share but still less revenue for developers.

[kelnos]

And yet the Google Play Store is fine. Is there more malware on it than Apple's App Store? Sure. But people use it every day, and the world hasn't fallen apart. They could certainly do more to root out malware, but that doesn't mean full-on gatekeeper with draconian rules like Apple has done.

[kelnos]

The difference is that the video game developer has priced the console-maker's cut into the cost of the product, and that's the only way it can be sold.

Spotify charges a lower monthly price if you sign up on their website (and then go and sign in on iOS) than if you sign up through the iOS app.

Whether or not this hurts Spotify isn't at issue here; there are Spotify customers who are paying more than they have to because Apple refuses to let Spotify tell them about the lower price.

[mcv]

I think this is the only reasonable way to deal with this. You can't expect Spotify to take the hit. Apple demands extra money for users who sign up through the iOS app, so it's only reasonable to let the users who choose to sign up that way, pay the additional cost that comes with it.

Of course this would be entirely reasonable if it was a conscious choice by those users, but Apple is intentionally keeping the market non-transparent, screwing their own most loyal users.

[scarface74]

And that’s what Spotify did when they allowed in app purchases. They charged more for going through the App Store. Do physical retailers go out of their way to say that you can get a product cheaper somewhere else? Can manufacturers advertise in Walmart that consumers can get the item cheaper if they go to Amazon?