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.
> 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".