[Supermancho]

AAPL can, but doesnt. A lot of hand waving over hardware, is misdirection. AAPL can curate limited support for consumer hardware same as their custom hardware, but they dont want to negotiate AND stop relying on ridiculous markup. The issue is momentum. AAPL has demonstrated this is the way and gaming...with new random features becoming popular based on consumer hardware breakthroughs, doesnt feed into their existing, stable, pipelines of profit.

TL;DR Gaming is partially fed by innovation in hardware and AAPL hates that.

[emodendroket]

> TL;DR Gaming is partially fed by innovation in hardware and AAPL hates that.

You don't think Apple Silicon constitutes "innovation in hardware"?

[Supermancho]

> You don't think Apple Silicon constitutes "innovation in hardware"?

I thought it was clear that I meant the innovation that they don't control.

[emodendroket]

Then the claim seems untrue. Are the Switch and PlayStation in any way more open than a Mac? The opposite seems true.

[Supermancho]

> The opposite seems true.

I have no idea what you are saying. I don't think we are having an exchange about the same things, or at least not the same context.

ie The reason AAPL's board doesn't want to support 3rd party hardware, which is usually based around the newest gaming technology from potential competitors, is some opposite reason?

[Supermancho]

I was responding to:

> it doesn't make it (MSFT) a not-monopoly that its competitors are not able to compete effectively for various reasons.

My assertion is that AAPL could, but won't. The monopoly of MSFT in the gaming sphere is because of a sort of happy coincidence between a massive company willing to support third party hardware (MSFT) and another massive company that depends on not supporting it, to maintain a stranglehold on their market (AAPL) and all the minor players who can't afford to support hardware at scale for a prolonged period of time, to compete with MSFT...even thought a few have for a short time and fell behind or were acquired.