[TedDoesntTalk]

> Something like a Chromebook would have absolutely failed decades ago

Video game consoles existed decades ago, were locked down systems, and succeeded tremendously… starting all the way back in the 1970s with Atari 2600.

> because that’s how computers have always been

Phones before the iPhone allowed any app to be installed. J2ME. There was no precedent to do what Apple did with a lockdown like that, as far as I remember. Glad to be corrected but don’t forget to include the J2ME landscape in your analysis.

[srtjstjsj]

Video game consoles were extremely limited, as well as being cheap enough that people could buy several, as well as being completely inessential luxury toys, not tools for running businesses and lives.

[vlozko]

The scope and utility of a piece of technology is a weak argument in anti-trust debates, in my opinion. You have a similar set of issues with game consoles, too. Why should publishers like EA have to fork over 30% of their PS sales to Sony but Naughty Dog doesn’t have such a restriction? And have you even read about the onerous requirements that Sony imposes to allow for cross-play? And why can’t MS offer a streaming Game Pass on a Sony console? Being extremely limited does not make one not subject to anti-trust scrutiny.