[baddox]

If you are consistent in your claims and believe that all computing devices, including smartphones, game consoles, e-book readers, GPS watches, car entertainment centers, etc. should be required to provide a way for owners to run unsigned code, then my accusations of inconsistency do not apply to you.

In fact, I see much much less vitriol aimed towards game console store policy than iOS App Store policy. That's why I mention it.

[gtyras2mrs]

They cannot fight all battles at once. They probably think they have a better chance of winning this battle and setting the precedent for the next battles for other "app store" issues.

[m4rtink]

And all these devices certainly should be able to run the code their owner wants them to run, full stop.

That this is often not possible is stupid but also incredibly dangerous. Not by the standards of the evil Apple just did, but what even more malicious actors can do to you is they can run code on your device & you can't do anything about it.

It could be state actors pressuring the company making the think & or exploiting vulnerabilities in the closed source firmware running on it.

[ericflo]

They're clearly picking their battles. If they are able to win this case against Apple, they can use it as precedent to (hopefully) pressure consoles to open up too.

[brmgb]

You are intentionally muddying the water by bringing code signing (a technicality) and devices for which software distribution was never part of the economics. Nevertheless, yes, I think making ebook readers tied to a single store illegal would be a net positive from consumers. It would let stores compete on their merits as stores and readers as readers. More competition is always good.

Pointedly, my argument is simple: the modern concept of plateform, as has been pushed by management consulting firms for the past two decades and successfully been exploited by hightech companies, is a blatant attack against anti competition laws and I believe the whole thing only started because the US government decided it would only meekly enforce them. Rebranding barriers to entry moats shouldn't make artificially building them more acceptable.

As you rightfully pointed, plateforms seem to be popping everywhere nowadays from game consoles to cars. I don't find that surprising: reducing competition is like crack cocaine to companies. It both means less need to innovate and differentiate and a larger share of customers surplus (theorically all customer surplus but it might be too blatant then). Customers are the ones losing there.

As the whole thing strongly goes against one of the core tenant of modern capitalism, it seems obvious to me it is going to end with more regulations as soon as the political zeitgeist regarding economy will lean less towards extrem laissez-faire. Unless of course, we decide to go full-bore towards nineteenth century style capitalism...