Yeah well you are benefiting for Apple’s hardware and software so you need to pay. Can’t be a free-loaded just because you want to earn that extra bit of money while increasing the attack vector for the end user.
Apple defenders keep approaching these conversations like, "okay, you think you want to actually own your phone, but have you considered that sideloading would be just like <insert other awesome thing>?"
Nobody likes the pre-bundled garbage smart TV system; TVs where you can install arbitrary apps and use the same remote to operate them would be a better experience. As TVs have gotten more universal standards and APIs that any device can hook into, they've gotten better. We're all glad that TVs have arbitrary HDMI in, we like being able to use any game console with our TVs without needing to care about whether the console manufacturer has an agreement with the TV manufacturer, we don't like when we get a TV home and figure out it doesn't work with a service we already own.
"Apple is like those 'smart' TVs you buy where you get home and discover that for some bullcrap reason Youtube doesn't work and your home assistant can't control the volume" -- may not be the strong defense of Apple you think it is?
Do the people making these comparisons not understand that the comparisons all sound really good? It's like, "do you expect to be able to install any app on a console? Do you expect your smart phone hub to be able to work with any smart device? Or what, you buy an e-reader and expect to be able to just put any book on it?"
Yes, I do. I don't know, don't threaten me with a good time.
At least the security arguments make some sense, even an argument that Apple has some special right to profit off of "access to the users" is more defendable. But I feel sometimes like Apple apologists are living in an alternate world where they think that if Microsoft launched a console that could play both Xbox and PS5 games that consumers would all be saying, "we don't want that, that feature makes the Xbox worse."
Why do you have the expectation to install whatever you want on a smart TV? Just because there is a computer chip inside it?
I find it somewhat absurd that if you put a computer chip inside of a gadget you are now suddenly expected to support/enable installing literally anything.
If the consumer cares so much about that, they can buy something else.
> Just because there is a computer chip inside it?
Sort of, yes? I mean, if you've got a general purpose computing device stuck inside of a TV, it's kind of nice to be able to use it as a general purpose computing device.
And I mean, we have open standards for things. I'm not saying that companies should have to manually support everything, but if you ask me if it's a desirable feature or if it would be better for TVs to use common platforms that can be targeted regardless of hardware, what do you want me to say? That it's a bad thing if I can control the volume on my TV using a universal remote? That it's good that different smart assistants don't work with the same music services? Because having a smart assistant say that you can't use a music service because some CEOs got into a fight with each other actually stinks and I hate that.
> I find it somewhat absurd that if you put a computer chip inside of a gadget you are now suddenly expected to support/enable installing literally anything.
Okay, but you understand that every consumer would view that as a feature, right? You understand that when you say, "imagine if every app worked on your TV" pretty much everyone is going to say, "that sounds great, yes please."
Never before has any console or TV ever advertised less compatibility as if that is a desirable feature that customers should want. Never before has Microsoft gotten up on stage and said "we have a hundred launch titles" and then Playstation gotten on stage and said "hah, that's amateur talk, we have 45 launch titles, we're clearly winning this fight."
You're arguing that this is a slippery slope, but you're also arguing that there's chocolate cake and puppies at the bottom of the slope. Generally speaking, using cross-compatible standards that allow people to interop with devices without asking the manufacturer's permission is a thing that I want, yes. I like that cars use the CAN-BUS standard, that's a good regulation. I like that I can have 3rd-party repair shops for my car, I like that I can buy a stereo system and hook it up and it doesn't matter if the stereo manufacturer has an agreement with Toyota. I like that Samsung and LG TVs both use HDMI ports and I don't have to ask "which computers can I plug into this" when I buy a TV. And of course consumers generally like that we use universal USB standards now and we've gotten past every device having incompatible cords. These are all great things to have.
You can argue whatever you want, you can argue that this is an abridgement of Apple's rights. People might believe that.
But just be aware that your slippery slope sounds less like a slippery slope and more like some kind of prize, and if you're not careful people might start to say, "wait, you're saying that if we open up iOS devices we could then do the same thing to consoles, and I would stop needing to buy 3 separate consoles just to play different games? And I could buy cheap controllers instead of needing to spend 60-80 dollars for an official one? And I could play games with people who are on different consoles? So where do I sign up for that?"
