[theshrike79]

I agree, but we should also make restrictions on smart TVs and gaming consoles illegal too.

Both the Xbox and PS5 are 100% commodity hardware, not being able to run our own software on it is a really weird limitation. One that people even on HN have accepted while simultaneously ragging on Apple's "walled garden".

[pjmlp]

Actually that is not the case with XBox, you can have your own applications there without rooting it.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/xbox-apps/devk...

[ach9l]

And you can say "Actually that is not the case with iPad, you can have your own applications there without rooting it." have you heard of Xcode? still... you are missing the point, you can't even use an iPad to properly code for iPad

[codetrotter]

But can you use the Xbox itself to locally develop and run your own software? Or do you still need to use another computer or an online service via web browser?

[BaculumMeumEst]

That is the exactly the same weak, crippled, sandboxed bullshit that Apple gives you for your iPad. OP wants to run an OS on these devices, not that.

[zakki]

Are you going to bring your Smart TV and PS5 for VSCoding anywhere and anytime?

[codetrotter]

There are many people who can’t afford to buy both a computer and a PS5 and some of them choose to buy PS5. Would be nice to let those people use the PS5 hardware for what it is really capable of, including being able to run a desktop OS on it.

[vundercind]

The number of people who can so barely afford a PS5 that they can’t also afford a computer (these are a hell of a lot cheaper than a PS5), but are willing to screw with their PS5 in ways likely to mess it up in one way or another (if only making gaming impossible without further tinkering) is approximately zero.

[rezonant]

If you just changed "but" to "and" you'd get your point across with less a sense of whataboutism.

Yes, all platforms should be free. Personally it feels like devices that are marketed as general purpose have a higher expectation that people can use them for general purposes, but it is definitely true that any device you purchase should allow you to run whatever software you want on it.

[rfoo]

Yeah, that's why I refuse to buy PS5, iPhone and iPad.

I have a Switch though, thanks to Nintendo's incompetency on locking it down.

[steve1977]

But you know these restrictions when you buy the device. Same with the Apple ecosystem. So why make it illegal?

[franga2000]

Because it's an artificial limitation to make the company more money, at the expense of customer experience and the environment (yes, locked-down hardware is also a sustainability issue!).

Ideally, companies would exist to serve the public and so such selfish anti-consumer behaviour would be illegal. Unfortunately, they don't and current law seems to affirm that.

[mosselman]

I’d also like to be able to run anything on an iPad. But I know I can’t so I don’t buy it.

I find this notion that companies should do what we want ridiculous. You know the features and capabilities upfront or you can at least and then you can decide to buy or not.

[franga2000]

There are many problems with the "just don't buy it" argument. Mainly, that often times, the alternatives have huge unrelated down-sides. Apple makes the best tablet hardware by a large margin, but it's totally locked down. If I want a good tablet, I have bo real alternatives.

[scarface_74]

So even though as a user you have alternatives, you don’t want to buy one of those alternatives so Apple should make exactly what you personally want?

[franga2000]

No, I'm saying that Apple is so far ahead of the competition and this market is so hard to enter, that they essentially have a monopoly in the category "tablet computer that isn't shit".

And no, it's not that they should make what I want, it's that they should not prevent me from using their device in a way that I want.

[steve1977]

> I find this notion that companies should do what we want ridiculous.

The thing is, we actually have a vote in this by buying or not buying their products. So apparently, too many people are content enough with what Apple (for example) is doing.

[mosselman]

Yes exactly my point.

[matwood]

> Ideally, companies would exist to serve the public and so such selfish anti-consumer behaviour would be illegal.

Given that iPads are the most sold tablets in the market, I would argue that Apple did serve the public.

[_factor]

Temporarily at best. If I invent fire and lock it down so that only my grill can use it, while also releasing feel good propaganda to convince people that it is the only way fire works, yes it’s more beneficial than not for a time. As society grows around the concept, the artificial limitations begin hindering the elevated stage more than helping.

These companies have convinced unwitting masses that this is in their long-term best interests. I assure you it is not. It is about being controlled, and the invisible limitations placed on an individual when they grow to love their chains.

[steve1977]

> Ideally, companies would exist to serve the public

That would not be "companies" in the common sense anymore, but rather something like the East German "Volkseigener Betrieb" or the Russian "design bureaus". Which is something worth considering probably, but then you'd need larger changes, not just some laws that prohibit companies artificial limitations like this.

[euroderf]

> Because it's an artificial limitation to make the company more money

Market Segmentation 101.

Even back in VCR days the el-cheapos would let you set (say) 4 recordings, the mid-range 8, and the high-end 16. All the manufacturers did was tie down pins.

Hobbled hardware is a (dis)honorable tradition in tech.

[threeseed]

But the problem is that Apple doesn't want the iPad to be a regular computer.

That's the entire value proposition of the device.

And every advanced, niche feature they add dilutes this.

[nox101]

Because it's slowing killing the the environment for kids to learn. Parents give kids an iPad, they don't give them a notebook. Kid has hands tied for really exploring programming.

I'd be willing to bet if the same restrictions were in place in the 80s and 90s that 30-50% of the people who are programmers today wouldn't be programmers because they'd never have gotten started.

[threeseed]

There are many excellent web based programming environments that cater for beginners.

As someone who was learning how to develop in the 80s your comment is hilariously ridiculous. It is 1000x easier to learn now with the wealth of tooling, content, AI assistants etc than it was for me trying to learn C++ on a Mac Plus with no internet.

[matwood]

There is Swift Playgrounds, but if you're talking more about general purpose programming - sure. But, I don't think it changes anything. As devices have entered all aspects of our life, the vast majority want to use them as an appliance to take and edit pictures/video, draw, communicate, and play games. To say it's killing the environment for kids to learn feels a bit myopic by implying programming is the only way to learn.

[steve1977]

> Because it's slowing killing the the environment for kids to learn. Parents give kids an iPad, they don't give them a notebook.

That's a fair point. I think we need a law which makes it illegal for parents to give kids an iPad and not a notebook.

[scarface_74]

In the 80s and 90s there were locked down devices - game consoles - and computers.

[fragmede]

Because we want to. Of course the political capital of bunch of nerds isn't enough to make it happen but while the reasoning is different, I can't buy a new car that I can register without seatbelts, so the concept of making things illegal to buy is not entirely foreign. Of course, those are for safety, but I also can't buy a car that won't do at least 55 for the freeway unless I want a golf cart, so suitability for purpose is another concept. We'd just have to define computer in a legal sense, and then categorize the iPad as a computer, and finally make it a requirement that you can run your own code on computers. Of course, carrots are better than sticks, so maybe put a tax on all non-computer electronics, and a rebate for computers. All just to be able to run my own code on an ipad. Which, you can actually do with Pythonista. There's a small ecosystem of apps using that, as well as the official Shortcuts app, which I'd call programming. it's not Xcode on an iPad (though I'm sure there's a lucky engineer at Apple that has one that can do that, but then doesn't get to have any fun with it), and it's not really close either.

[steve1977]

> Because we want to.

Who is "we"? Apparently not enough people want this.

> I can't buy a new car that I can register without seatbelts, so the concept of making things illegal to buy is not entirely foreign.

That's a strawman argument. Not having cars without seatbelts has safety implications. A better analogy would be cars which don't allow you to replace the built-in car stereo for example.

> so maybe put a tax on all non-computer electronics, and a rebate for computers. All just to be able to run my own code on an ipad. Which, you can actually do with Pythonista.

Then maybe we should also have a tax for computers that run Python, because it's so energy inefficient. Only make the ones tax-free that only allow C++ and assembly language.

[fragmede]

> Who is "we"

Everybody who wants Xcode on iPads to happen. If you do not want such a thing, I am not talking for you. There may be dozens of us and we don't have the political clout to make it happen, but maybe we can agree that something has been lost here.

Is it still a straw man argument when I explicitly point out that I know it's not the same thing, twice, with the phrases "while the reasoning is different" and "Of course, those are for safety"?

As far as taxing Python for energy inefficiency goes, If it means violating Wirth's Law, I can't say that I'd be entirely against it in the hypothetical because we both know that's never going to happen. It takes longer to open some apps on my iPhone that's a million times faster (though, to be fair, also does a million more things) than it took to open vi on a Linux box in console mode (no X) in the previous century.

[jimbokun]

Depends on your views about anti-trust applied to the phone and tablet markets.

The Biden administration opened a wide ranging anti-trust suit against Apple. Will see what comes of it.