[GeekyBear]

> It is designed to, though. That's the thing. The line is arbitrarily drawn at not getting CLI/root access to your iPad.

An XBox's hardware is designed to run general purpose Windows software.

However, it's been clear for a decade that Microsoft is selling the XBox as a game playing appliance, and has no intention of allowing you to run general purpose Windows software on it.

If you choose to buy an appliance instead of a computer, that's your call.

You gain ease of use and freedom from having to manage device complexity, but lose the ability to do whatever you want.

[__MatrixMan__]

Just because it's commonplace doesn't make it any less hostile to users. The tradeoff argument is legitimate, but it would be easy enough to have a yolo-mode button somewhere that voids the warranty and unshackles the user.

This is why I prefer Android. Google is evil, sure, but at least they don't treat me like a child. If I want to take one of their devices and shoot myself in the foot with it, that's fine with them (and thanks to nix-on-droid, there's plenty of ammo for such adventures).

[musicale]

> Just because it's commonplace doesn't make it any less hostile to users.

Sure, game consoles are user-hostile. They're also great for playing games, and they tend to "just work" with less configuration and customization than a typical gaming PC.

Less configuration tends to mean fewer problems and easier tech support, but the primary business reason game consoles are locked town is to make it harder to play unlicensed commercial games on them.

[__MatrixMan__]

It seems you're advocating for the benefits of having a door when the objection is to locking the door.

By all means have a some kind of verified/sealed mode and refuse to support anything that's not in that mode--but there are negative consequences to normalizing a lack of control over the technology that people interact with.

Take the crowd strike incident for instance. Millions of people unable to do jobs that they're relied upon to do, and we can't even hold them accountable for that because it turns out they were never in control of their tools in the first place--locked out of the section necessary to carry out the repair.

You wouldn't tolerate a screwdriver that refused to be used to pry open a paint can. I don't see how it should be any different with a phone. I want to be able to rely on users of tools--not vendors of tools--to do things, and I can't. Not because the people are authentically incompetent, but because some vendor has made a dumb decision about what they're now not allowed to do.

[GeekyBear]

Crowdstrike is software that IT departments install in an attempt to mitigate the security threats that come hand in hand with having the freedom to shoot yourself in the foot.

In thus case, it was Crowdstrike that shot them in the foot.

Managing complexity has a cost that some people don't want to be bothered with.

They are allowed to choose an appliance instead of a PC, even if you would make a different choice.

[armada651]

> but the primary business reason game consoles are locked town is to make it harder to play unlicensed commercial games on them.

Which is user-hostile. The user bought the hardware, so they should be allowed to play whatever they please. Hiding the true cost of the hardware by inflating game prices using licensing fees is monopolistic and an attempt at misleading the consumer.

This is the exact same business model as printer companies reducing the price of printers by inflating the price of printer cartridges and locking down the ability to use third-party ones. It is unbelievable to see people on a site called "Hacker News" defending that business model.

[GeekyBear]

If there were no way to know in advance if you were buying a gaming appliance or a gaming computer, you might have a point.

Some people prefer the simplicity and reliability of an appliance.

Some people embrace complexity in the name of having the freedom to do anything (including the freedom to shoot yourself in the foot).

The notion that consumers shouldn't be allowed to make decisions that are different than your own... THAT is user hostile.

[armada651]

> The notion that consumers shouldn't be allowed to make decisions that are different than your own... THAT is user hostile.

Having the choice is fine, but if there's no way to opt-out then it's not a choice. While far from perfect the Xbox One is a good example of the video game platform that offers an opt-out. And it works, it is one of the most secure gaming consoles on the market and yet it still offers consumers the ability to create their own game software for it.

[GeekyBear]

There is, in fact, a very simple way to opt out of buying an appliance.

Don't buy it.

[musicale]

> Hiding the true cost of the hardware by inflating game prices using licensing fees is monopolistic and an attempt at misleading the consumer

R&D is undertaken with the expectation of future reward, often including licensing fees. However, if we consider component and manufacturing costs, those have always been included in the price of the Nintendo Switch. Even the disc-based PS5 became profitable by that metric after 8 months, during a global pandemic with supply chain shocks.

[pjmlp]

Most of the time people aren't stupid, if they care about where they are spending their money they aren't buying devices on the split of a second and complaining later.

[armada651]

People aren't stupid but there is no way to escape this bussiness model unless you go to PC. And the PC is only begrudgingly still an open platform. If something is ever going to successfully replace the PC it will be a walled garden as well.

I am appalled by how easily people dismiss the importance of open platforms as insecure and inconvenient. How will people ever learn technical skills if all the technology they own is locked down and glued shut?

[pjmlp]

They buy Android, Windows, Jolla, Pinephone,.....