[Zambyte]

The arbitrary limitations on computers that are obviously general purpose is more clear than the arbitrary limitations on general purpose computers that are marketed as special purpose computers (gaming machines). In reality they're all equally bad.

[tracerbulletx]

Gaming consoles are not really special purpose anymore.

[Zambyte]

That's why I called them "general purpose computers that are marketed as special purpose computers".

[simondotau]

Are you saying that the laws governing digital markets should vary based on a manufacturer's current marketing strategy?

What if they market it one way this month and a different way next month?

I wonder, would a Chromebook be considered a general purpose computer for the purposes of this argument? Should the rules change for the Xbox if Microsoft ever mentions that the Xbox is a great platform for browsing the web on a TV? You can plug a keyboard and mouse into it and Google Docs (among others) works perfectly.

[omnimus]

Yes the rules should change. Otherwise it will increasingly go other way and what used to be general use devices will be turned into limited use computers that users wont own.

Apple has been heading in this direction with iOS, iPadOs and lately with MacOs too. I think their main reason though is to be able to force users to upgrade/trash otherwise perfectly fine devices using software. Computers are fast enough for most users already but then there is no reason to upgrade.

[Zambyte]

> Are you saying that the laws governing digital markets should vary based on a manufacturer's current marketing strategy?

Definitely not. Hence why I said:

> In reality they're all equally bad.

People who own a computer should have full control over their devices, full stop. I don't care if it's Apple, Google, Nintendo, whomever. They shouldn't have any say in what a computer can and can't do after they sold it.

[simondotau]

To be fair though, Apple doesn't "have a say" in what you do with your computer after it's sold to you. You can do whatever you want with your computer hardware. Where they DO have a say is in what their software does, software which you don't own. You're merely granted a license to use it. It sucks, but that's how intellectual property works in today's world.

If you want to make an argument for requiring Apple (et al) to provide straightforward mechanisms for rejecting the supplied software and installing alternative operating systems (e.g. Asahi Linux) then I'll support it to the ends of the earth. I'd be your most vocal supporter. I'd be delighted if this was a legal requirement of all computer hardware, from mainframes to microwaves.

If you want to make an argument for software developers (operating system or otherwise) to be legally required to make their software do anything their customers demands it do (or what another billion dollar corporation like Epic Games demands) then I think that's utterly mad. What would be the self-limiting principle other than to only apply it to exceptionally successful products, with the threshold of success defined by lobbyists of competitors/opponents?

[Zambyte]

> You can do whatever you want with your computer hardware.

You can't swap the batteries between two iPhones that you purchased directly from Apple. It's probably true of other components too, but I am certain about the batteries.

> If you want to make an argument for software developers (operating system or otherwise) to be legally required to make their software do anything their customers demands it do (or what another billion dollar corporation like Epic Games demands) then I think that's utterly mad.

I think they should be legally required to not impose restrictions on what the user does with the software that is on the hardware that is sold to them. That means: Free Software all the way down. Obviously Apple shouldn't be legally obligated to do what people want them to do with their software. What I am saying is that it should be illegal for Apple to stop others from doing what others want with their software.

[tracerbulletx]

Oh, my bad.

[Zambyte]

No worries, I feel like the way I worded it was weird :D

[johnnyanmac]

They pretty much are. They don't even had facilities that older consoles had like an accessible web browser or custom theming.

Just because they have general computing hardware doesn't mean they are general purpose computers.

[haswell]

iOS/iPadOS devices have never been marketed as general purpose computers though.

They have increasingly become that, and I’m not arguing that the limitations are good, but the limitations of the app store have always been core to the marketing of these devices.

The Mac product lines are the only “general purpose” devices.

[quelltext]

You don't remember the "What's a computer?" ad?

iPads are most definitely marketed as devices suitable to take the place of conventional computers.

[haswell]

To me, that ad underscores the point somewhat. Apple is marketing these devices as something other than a computer. Something that makes a computer unnecessary.

The underlying implication being: “You don’t need a computer”, and “our ecosystem is so good that the new generation won’t even know what a computer is”.

As a tech and Linux nerd since the early 2000s, I can understand why other tech savvy people could interpret this as “this is no different than a computer”, but I don’t think this is the right framing, and I don’t think we’re the intended audience.

Their claim has always been that this ecosystem makes general purpose computers unnecessary for a wide array of use cases, because “there’s an app for that”.

From the perspective of a layperson, I think the message is: “Computers are for tech people (and/or outdated). This is for the rest of us”.

The term “general purpose” means something very different to the HN crowd than it does for the majority of Apple customers.

I want to reiterate that I’m not endorsing their position, just trying to point out that their marketing has been consistent in trying to differentiate the i*OS products. The difference between “you don’t need a computer” and “this is a general purpose computer” is subtle but important I think.

I also don’t think it’s a good direction for tech in general, even though I value some of the benefits of the locked down ecosystem. I do most of my productive work on a Linux system and think it’s critically important to continue having this option.

I’m just not trying to use an iPad for this purpose.