| HN Mirror

why couldn't the Xbox run, let's say, Office applications, if microsoft would allow it to? and why shouldn't it?

the reason it's a "video game console" is precisely because it's so locked down, is it not? why does that starting point of unfreedom justify continued unfreedom for xbox, and yet not for iphone?

do you not have a moral right to the free-as-in-speech usage of the hardware you paid for, when you purchase an xbox? if not, why not apply this logic to the iphone?

would apple's lawyers not argue, in the same sense, that an iphone is a phone first and foremost, a tool that runs a limited selection of utilities that people find useful in their daily life, not a general computing platform?

why should iphone be forced to become an open, general computing platform, if Xbox should not?

if the difference is subsidies, that xbox is being sold below the actual cost of hardware (debatable, but for the sake of argument) - is that not "dumping" (in the anticompetitive sense) to secure a monopoly and then enforce anticompetitive lock-ins in the software marketplace and keep their competitors out? How is that a thing that we should be backing, that hardware sold at cost must allow competitors and yet hardware sold via anticompetitive dumping should be allowed to lock out their competitors?

the logic you very quickly come to is that this suit is actually not about freedom at all, it's about publishers who want to bypass app review so they can siphon data without apple interfering to protect their users, and to bypass the revenue cut so they can substitute their own. Because these publishers have no interest in the freedom of their own users at all, and took the exact same revenue cut themselves until the day they filed the lawsuit (and will raise their fees back up a year or two after the lawsuit is concluded).

again, if Microsoft and others were being forthright, it would be easy for themselves to open up their hardware for third-party app stores. The Zen architecture has great support for encrypted memory virtualization, this is extremely low-risk. They most certainly will not do that because - unlike revenue cuts - that's not a change they can go back on in a year or two once the lawsuit is concluded. Once they open pandora's box they can't close it again, and they have no real intention to actually open it. They will argue for the lines to be drawn exactly where it conveniences them while inconveniencing apple - that xbox is a "console" while iphone is a "general purpose device".

it's merely a convenient argument to exploit pro-software freedom advocates and anti-apple sentiment in order to lever open Apple's fortress while maintaining their own, not actually an honest argument. Tim Sweeny of all people is not actually making a good faith argument here, nor is microsoft.

It’s effectively going to destroy all the permissioning and security that defines the ios experience, for no real gain besides letting Facebook siphon a little more data. They’re going to do the exact same thing they’ve already had their hand slapped for doing, and this time Apple won’t be able to do anything, it’ll be “if you want to use Facebook then side load this and give it full permissions, btw we’re revoking the ability to use the website for iOS users”.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...