> But the smartphone has grown beyond a simple "nice-to-have" utility.
Lets frame the discussion accordingly indeed. Not all gaming machines are consoles and not all smartphones are iPhones.
Why should we prevent Sony from providing a console just because the PC is much more than a nice-to-have utility and their console competes with PC's? Apple is not a monopoly, and they are not even the majority of smart phones. Why should they be forced not to deliver a console experience (that many even if not the majority enjoy) simply because the category as a whole is an essential utilty?
Why should we enforce through law what can be perfectly well accomplished by people voting with their feet and just buying the smartphone devices that aren't walled gardens?
I don't particularly like Pepsi, and rather enjoy coka cola, but I'm not going to go out on a mad rager about how "cola products are abundant throughout our society, so we desperately need to force Pepsi to change their recipe to align with coka-colas because otherwise our society is going to suffer from drinking bad cola!"
If you don't like iPhones don't buy them. If you don't like consol don't buy them. But trying to argue that the pc is such a essential utility and that it competes in some subset of functionality and that no-one should therefore be allowed to produce or own consoles is just absurd.
I don't follow what point you're making. I mentioned nothing about monopolies, disallowing anyone from making a phone or console(?), nor Apple specifically. My comment was about smartphones in general.
It's pretty simple. Gaming consoles are primarily (almost exclusively) for entertainment.
Smartphones are for accessing information, essential services (ie. banking), directions, forecasts, and news. They also facilitate communicating with family, friends, business associates, emergency services and in many cases the government itself. Oh, they also contain our most intimate thoughts, plans, ideas and memories.
It's not even comparable. At all.
>I don't particularly like Pepsi, and rather enjoy coka cola, but I'm not going to go out on a mad rager ...
Absolutely terrible analogy. How about instead you were denied the right to own a smartphone? But were told it's okay because hey, you have a console! It's a perfect substitute!
> Absolutely terrible analogy. How about instead you were denied the right to own a smartphone?
Who exactly has been denied the right to own a smartphone? Speaking of terrible analogies...
You are repeatedly conflating the iPhone with all smartphones. Saying that the smartphone is a mandatory device does not contradict the idea that the iPhone (a specific luxury brand of smartphone) is not.
If you quote me, please don't omit the context. Which was:
How about instead you were denied the right to own a smartphone? But were told it's okay because hey, you have a console! It's a perfect substitute!
A game console is not, as I'm sure you'll agree, a substitute for a smartphone. Which is what the (intentionally ridiculous) hypothetical was illustrating. The analogy of the parent was Coke v. Pepsi, but that falls flat because one is near perfect substitute for the other (for the vast majority of people).
>You are repeatedly conflating the iPhone with all smartphones.
The parent said "the iPhone is a console, end of story" which means all smartphones are consoles.
I understand the context but I think you've actually largely misunderstood the point of the original poster you were quoting:
> To me the iPhone is a console, end of story.
That poster was suggesting the iPhone is an intentionally locked-down device similar to the way that consoles are locked-down devices. They also suggested there are alternative devices on the market (Android for smartphones, PCs for gaming) that are not locked-down for users who prefer that approach.
Whereas you've interpreted the original post to mean that smartphones have the same level of utility as consoles, but no one actually suggested that. So you jumping in to point out that smartphones are more useful than consoles is, while true, not really relevant to this particular discussion.
> The parent said "the iPhone is a console, end of story" which means all smartphones are consoles. Right?
No, see my above explanation. Regardless, they specifically used the word iPhone, why did you think it was appropriate to interpret that to mean all smartphones? If I said "a Ferrari is X" no one would reasonably interpret that to mean "all vehicles are X".
Try to re-read my comment detached from the original posters overall argument since I actually made no mention of it.
My problem (as I though was clear, perhaps not) is with dismissively equating (any) smartphone with consoles. Especially as it relates to business models and user freedoms. It's intellectually lazy and is especially a disservice when used dismissively ("end of story"). We can and should do better.
So you took a single sentence from an entire paragraph out of context and proceeded to post an elaborate counter-argument against an argument the original poster hadn't actually made? Literally the same thing you were complaining about two posts above?
No one actually suggested smartphones have the same level of utility as a console. The original point was that one specific aspect (tightly controlled software distribution) of one specific brand of phone (the iPhone) is similar to the console experience and is something certain users might actually prefer, which is an entirely fair point to make.
Lets say theoretically PC gaming didn't exist. If the only way to play games was with a console from Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo do you really think they would be selling consoles at a loss[1]? PC gaming is what keeps consoles priced competitively. If smartphones are like consoles, then currently you can only buy consoles. Sure Android is a little bit more open than iOS but not by much. There's not a problem with the existence of walled gardens / console-like devices, but there needs to be options available that aren't so restricted. Currently 99% of the smartphone market is controlled by Apple and Google, neither of which are willing to give up their control so I think this is a case where some kind of intervention is required to introduce competition.
Lets frame the discussion accordingly indeed. Not all gaming machines are consoles and not all smartphones are iPhones. Why should we prevent Sony from providing a console just because the PC is much more than a nice-to-have utility and their console competes with PC's? Apple is not a monopoly, and they are not even the majority of smart phones. Why should they be forced not to deliver a console experience (that many even if not the majority enjoy) simply because the category as a whole is an essential utilty?
Why should we enforce through law what can be perfectly well accomplished by people voting with their feet and just buying the smartphone devices that aren't walled gardens?
I don't particularly like Pepsi, and rather enjoy coka cola, but I'm not going to go out on a mad rager about how "cola products are abundant throughout our society, so we desperately need to force Pepsi to change their recipe to align with coka-colas because otherwise our society is going to suffer from drinking bad cola!"
If you don't like iPhones don't buy them. If you don't like consol don't buy them. But trying to argue that the pc is such a essential utility and that it competes in some subset of functionality and that no-one should therefore be allowed to produce or own consoles is just absurd.