My comment was not about a particular company, nor was it advocating for any specific policy. It was merely illustrating why equating smartphones with consoles is foolish and lazy.

>Basing policy on the current ephemeral norms rather than consistently applied principles seems ill-advised.

I agree. What "consistently applied principle" did you interpret my comment to be against?

> I agree. What "consistently applied principle" did you interpret my comment to be against?

The principle that would be applied when considering game consoles. In other words, it's not "foolish" or "lazy", rather it is what consistently applying a principle looks like in practice. The perceived difference between user behavior or criticality on big glass app-based smartphones vs consoles is ephemeral.

>The principle that would be applied when considering game consoles.

What "principle" is that, specifically? I genuinely don't understand.

Is it my usage of disparaging terms? If so, that's fair. If not, can you articulate why the idea put forth that it's useless to compare consoles and smartphones is somehow violating a "first principle".

What first principle does that idea violate?

To summarize the conversation so far: burlesona extended an analogy by suggesting that console software lock-in is a feature that gamers seek out, and for those gamers that don't like it, there is a more than acceptable option that other gamers seek out. Their argument is that the principles that would apply with gaming consoles should also in theory also apply with app-based mobile phones.

You countered that it was a "ridiculous analogy" that it's "foolish" and "lazy" (really, try cordially engaging with an argument next time) — suggesting that mobile phones are more critical than game consoles because the former are practically a part of people's everyday life, and more than just a "nice-to-have".

I (and a couple others) responded by pointing out that the practical reality you pointed out is true now, but wasn't true as recently as 10 years ago, and that it's hard to know if it will continue to be true 10 years from now. I explicitly referred to this as an "ephemeral norm", and that basing policy on ephemeral norms rather than abstract principles is ill-advised, to which you agreed. The market conditions will most probably change as different technologies are invented, as has been the case for the last century.

Apple's walled garden is a feature to a lot of its customers (myself included), and people like me seek that out. For those customers that don't like it, there is a more than acceptable OS option (and many acceptable hardware options) that they may seek out. That is the abstract principle.

You misread my comment. I wasn't advocating for, or against, Apple or any other company. My comment applied to the entire smartphone market, and how it was different from the entire console market.

Saying that because a certain model (seemingly) works in consoles, that it should also work in phones is lazy thinking. Saying "the iPhone is a console, end of story" is a ridiculous analogy. It's also an analogy that exclusively comes from (predominantly white) wealthy westerners.

Try asking anyone not in the top 5% of the worlds wealth if a gaming console and a smart phone are of comparable importance. Then, ask them if smartphones and consoles should be afforded similar consideration and protections by their society.

You'll be laughed out of the room because there's no comparison. One gives them access to the entirety of the worlds knowledge, the ability to communicate with anyone in the world, and captures deeply intimate thoughts and ideas. While the other...?

It plays Grand Theft Auto[0].

The rest of your argument, seems to be that "the market will sort it out" and any interference with the space will stifle growth and innovation. Maybe. But I'm sorry, that's not a universal "first principle", that's an opinion. My opinion is that smart legislation could actually accelerate growth and innovation while at the same time enhancing user freedoms and protections. But that's getting off track and wasn't the point I was making:

Equating smartphones with gaming consoles is as intellectually lazy as it is troubling.

[0] I love GTA, and gaming in general, so this is not a knock on it.

> Try asking anyone not in the top 5% of the worlds wealth if a gaming console and a smart phone are of comparable importance. Then, ask them if smartphones and consoles should be afforded similar consideration and protections by their society.

You're not directly addressing the argument. Literally nobody here suggested that they are of comparable importance. Everyone concedes that smartphones are far more "important" than gaming consoles. The argument is that the "importance" of smartphones today is an ephemeral condition. You yourself agreed that basing policy on ephemeral trends is probably not a good idea, so the best way for you to stay internally consistent is to prove that this is somehow not an ephemeral norm.

> The rest of your argument, seems to be that "the market will sort it out" and any interference with the space will stifle growth and innovation. Maybe. But I'm sorry, that's not a universal "first principle", that's an opinion. My opinion is that smart legislation could actually accelerate growth and innovation while at the same time enhancing user freedoms and protections. But that's getting off track and wasn't the point I was making:

No, the central argument is that the current reality has only been true for < 10 years. That's not an opinion, that's an observation of history. And the definition of "user freedom" is blurry here, because some of us enjoy the freedom to use a tightly controlled operating system for our own convenience, and see the desire to break that up as a violation of our original choice. You might have a good point to make if consumers originally expected to have some level of control over their Apple phones, but people explicitly signed up for the opposite of that — we've always known that the walled garden was a part of the deal. You might also have a good point to make here if there was no alternative in the market, but just like PC's and Consoles, there is a more than acceptable alternative that's conveniently also cheaper and more within reach for the "non-5%". The entirety of the worlds knowledge, the ability to communicate with anyone in the world, and the deeply intimate thoughts / ideas are equally accessible on both platforms, and switching between the two is fairly straightforward considering most major services are provided on both platforms, and the credentials you would use to access your bank account or your medical records or your email work on both types of apps.

> Equating smartphones with gaming consoles is as intellectually lazy as it is troubling.

Again, you're really not addressing the central argument, and you're relying on insults to make your point. The central argument is that while there is undeniably an "importance gap" between the two, we ought to apply the same principles because the gap is ephemeral. If you really believe that the current norms are NOT ephemeral, make that case, you might even have a good point. But you don't need to attack the people making the argument, which undermines your case (and yes, calling an argument "lazy" and "ridiculous" and "troubling" is just a thinly veiled attack on the person).

> The central argument is that while there is undeniably an "importance gap" between the two, we ought to apply the same principles because the gap is ephemeral.

That's the argument you are trying to make this comment thread about. It has nothing to do with my objection to equating smartphones with consoles today (which I should remind, you is the comment you replied to). I only suggested that: "we need to recognize [the societal importance of smartphones] and frame our discussions accordingly." Equating smartphones with consoles diminishes their significance for the purpose of framing an argument in a certain way. It's just not helpful.

You're saying that my take somehow violates some universally "consistent first principle" because the current state is ephemeral. Yet, I made no claims about what one should think in the future. I described how it is now, and articulated that the trend is likely to continue. You seem to agree with my take on the current state and the trend right?

Then, you went off on a tangent and said the following:

>some of us enjoy the freedom to use a tightly controlled operating system for our own convenience

>the desire to break that up [is] a violation of our original choice.

>You might have a good point to make if consumers originally expected to have some level of control over their Apple phones, but people explicitly signed up for the opposite of that

>You might also have a good point to make here if there was no alternative in the market,

>are equally accessible on both platforms, and switching between the two is fairly straightforward

Whoa. You're arguing like 5 or 6 different point I never tried to make. It's like you saw the word "iPhone" and immediately went into super defensive mode. That's... uh.. shall we say, concerning.

What I did say was in support of (most of) what you've said above "One can certainly argue that because of all that, the app ecosystem should be tightly controlled. That's fair."

It's actually funny because despite what you've assumed, I'm actually an Apple user and developer. I've exclusively used their phones and computers for over a decade. I love them. In my living room (where I'm sitting right now), there are over $10k worth of Apple products. Yet somehow you keep assuming that I'm anti-Apple. And you're relentlessly countering arguments I never made. Stop it.

Please.. for the love of everything, re-read my comments now that you know I'm an avid Apple user. Note especially that I've pointed out (at least twice) that my comments are about the entire market and have nothing to do with individual manufacturers. I genuinely don't know how to make it any clearer than:

>My comment was not about a particular company, nor was it advocating for any specific policy.

>I wasn't advocating for, or against, Apple or any other company. My comment applied to the entire smartphone market, and how it was different from the entire console market.

So, what are you arguing? When you reply, try not to use the phrase "(universal) first principle". Your use of that phrase to describe an opinion comes across as condescending and arrogant.

> Equating smartphones with consoles diminishes their significance for the purpose of framing an argument in a certain way. It's just not helpful.

And I just made the case for why it's acceptable to equate the two despite the significance for smart phones.

> Whoa. You're arguing like 5 or 6 different point I never tried to make. It's like you saw the word "iPhone" and immediately went into super defensive mode. That's... uh.. shall we say, concerning.

I'm arguing 5 or 6 different points that explain why I think that the (very real) significance of smartphones isn't necessarily consequential to whether we ought to treat them like we treat game consoles.

> It's actually funny because despite what you've assumed, I'm actually an Apple user and developer. I've exclusively used their phones and computers for over a decade. I love them. In my living room (where I'm sitting right now), there are over $10k worth of Apple products. Yet somehow you keep assuming that I'm anti-Apple. And you're relentlessly countering arguments I never made. Stop it.

I don't think I ever made that assumption, and if I did, I apologize.

> So, what are you arguing? When you reply, try not to use the phrase "(universal) first principle". Your use of that phrase to describe an opinion comes across as condescending and arrogant.

I never used the phrase "first principle", so I'm not sure what you're on about. What I'm arguing is that we ought to pick a principle that can be consistently applied analogously. If you find an analog that you think is inappropriate (mobile vs console), try and identify why it's inappropriate. You did that by arguing that mobile phones are socially far more significant than consoles.

In my argument, I made the case that the analogy is in fact totally appropriate despite the fact that mobile phones are (in this moment) more significant, because the circumstances that make the two markets different are actually ephemeral.

Anyway, you've been fairly hostile in this entire conversation (more so than anyone else in the thread), so it's probably not worth my time to engage any further.

>you've been fairly hostile in this entire conversation

Fair. But I take offence at being told my ideas/thoughts are violating "consistently applied" (universal or wholly agreed upon) principles[0]. It's condescending and smug.

It's especially annoying when you can't seem to clearly articulate what that principle is, or why it trumps the principle that "we should do what is best for society and the economy" that I am putting forth.

[0] Technically, you're right. You didn't say "first principle" so I apologize for that. However, you did say "consistently applied principles" and the gist is pretty much the same (as in "it's a universally agreed upon truth").