The way that an iPhone is different from a Nintendo Switch is arbitrary though.
If you're talking about changing laws it'd be nice to have more of a defense than "this computer we call a phone should be treated differently than the computer we call a Gameboy".
Without some clear and useable definitions, there's no precedents that can be set and leveraged. You will also, by necessity, require bureaucratic bloat to decide what counts and what doesn't for every device moving forward. At best, this is a slow process that delays innovation and reduces availability for users.
Sure, but we draw distinctions like that all the time. There's generally legal differences between "E-Bikes" and "Motorcycles", despite the fact that they're nominally pretty similar (two wheeled, self-powered transportation). We draw distinctions between "phone lines" and "power lines", despite the fact that both carry electric current. We draw distinctions between "bread" and "alcohol", despite the fact that both are made the same way.
I'd argue that while there isn't a hard line in the sand, we more or less define "computer" as something that's "general purpose". I don't consider my oven a "computer", I don't consider my digital COVID test a computer, I don't consider my key fob a computer. I do consider my Macbook a computer, because I do a lot of dissimilar things with it; I write documents, I watch videos, I listen to music, I play games, I log into servers, I VoIP chat with friends, I edit video, etc. I don't think anyone disputes that a Macbook is a "computer"; if nothing else all of that applies to Linux and Windows as well.
You know what else it applies to? An iPhone. I can do all those things with an iPhone. I really can't do any of those things (besides play games) on a GameBoy.
Of course, admittedly I'm kind of moving the goalpost, because of course the line of "general purpose" is kind of arbitrary; the Gameboy did have a camera, the Gameboy Advance had a TV Tuner and MP3 player, so you're absolutely right that it would require some kind of bureaucratic overhead to define what "general purpose" even means, and moreover the second that they have a definition the companies will use that as a guide to narrowly skirt it and therefore avoid regulation.
I don't know the solution, but I do know that it feels a bit dirty for Apple to feel entitled to so much money when they're not even the ones distributing the apps at that point. People gave so much shit to Unity for their idiotic "install fee", but people have become bizarrely defensive of Apple for doing basically the same thing.
> There's generally legal differences between "E-Bikes" and "Motorcycles", despite the fact that they're nominally pretty similar (two wheeled, self-powered transportation). We draw distinctions between "phone lines" and "power lines", despite the fact that both carry electric current. We draw distinctions between "bread" and "alcohol", despite the fact that both are made the same way.
But there a technical differences between those classes of things, even if the lines are drawn arbitrarily. A motorcycle has more than a certain amount of power. A “power line” carries a voltage which is too high to be considered “intrinsically safe”. Alcohol has intoxicating effects, while bread does not.
What is the difference between an iPhone and a Switch? We call one a phone and the other a game. If I made an Android phone with less computing power than a switch, can I call it a game? Or is it still a phone?
> You know what else it applies to? An iPhone. I can do all those things with an iPhone. I really can't do any of those things (besides play games) on a GameBoy.
But that is only because Nintendo doesn’t allow it. There’s no technical reason a Switch can’t be a phone. Why is ok for Nintendo to do that, but not Apple? Just “dirty vibes”? That’s not how the law is supposed to work.
Nintendo might not be happy about it, but the only person stopping you from using a Switch like a phone is you. You're absolutely correct, besides the lack of WWAN modem the Switch is indeed technically capable of being a phone.
> But there a technical differences between those classes of things, even if the lines are drawn arbitrarily.
Sure, but that's a matter of degree, not kind. We're kind of arbitrarily (as you stated) decided "what horsepower constitutes a motorcyle?"
Similarly, I don't know that there's a definite line of "intrinsically safe" for electricty; I've been shocked by my 120V AC in my house and lived to tell the tale, so does that imply it's safe? I don't think so, people die from 120VAC shocks all the time; It's still a somewhat arbitrary line.
I'll admit that the bread analogy does break down, because bread doesn't make you drunk, there actually is small amounts of alcohol in bread [0], though I'm not sure that you could actually get drunk from it no matter how much you ate.
> But that is only because Nintendo doesn’t allow it. There’s no technical reason a Switch can’t be a phone. Why is ok for Nintendo to do that, but not Apple? Just “dirty vibes”? That’s not how the law is supposed to work.
I did caveat in a previous post that game consoles kind of blur the line for me. You could probably convince me that they should allow alternative app stores. At least with video games, I feel there's a bit more competition than "smartphones", since you have large offerings from around six platforms instead of two (Nintendo, Microsoft Xbox, Microsoft Windows (which requires no license!), Sony PlayStation, iOS, Android (plus all the other rebrands of Android that are independently run)).
We do have legal precedent for this in some capacity [1]. The courts felt that Microsoft was abusing its power by making it difficult/impossible to install alternative browsers inside Microsoft Windows. The initial ruling ended up with Microsoft being ordered to split up, but this was admittedly overturned.
I realize it's not apples to apples; iOS doesn't have the monopoly on the ARM that Windows had on x86 in the 90's (you are, after all, perfectly free to buy an Android phone instead of an iPhone and your life probably won't be appreciably hindered), but it does seem like the courts do have some issues with operating systems companies abusing power.
> We're kind of arbitrarily (as you stated) decided "what horsepower constitutes a motorcyle?"
Ok, let’s apply that definition. Why is an iPhone SE (17 TFLOPS) a general purpose computer, but an PS5 (20 TFLOPS) isn’t?
> Similarly, I don't know that there's a definite line of "intrinsically safe" for electricty
Less than 50 volts in every jurisdiction I’m aware of. Now you do.
> there actually is small amounts of alcohol in bread
Doesn’t matter. You will get sick and puke before you consume enough alcohol from bread to make you drunk. You cannot get drunk from bread.
> You could probably convince me that they should allow alternative app stores. At least with video games, I feel there's a bit more competition than "smartphones
So there’s nothing intrinsic to a switch that makes it a game and not a phone.
> The courts felt that Microsoft was abusing its power
Microsoft had over 90% market share (real, global market share, not bullshit “market share of computers running windows”) when that determination was made. Apple has about 30% in Europe.
If you're talking about changing laws it'd be nice to have more of a defense than "this computer we call a phone should be treated differently than the computer we call a Gameboy".
Without some clear and useable definitions, there's no precedents that can be set and leveraged. You will also, by necessity, require bureaucratic bloat to decide what counts and what doesn't for every device moving forward. At best, this is a slow process that delays innovation and reduces availability for users.