One of Apple's defenses against EU regulators wanting them to allow side-loading is downright whataboutism as they point to games-consoles as similarly locked-down, single-marketplace platforms that extract the same 30% cut of sales revenue from developers. And there are plenty of non-game titles on the Xbox and PlayStation stores (Netflix, alternative web-browsers[1], even a Google Stadia client... sort-of [2]), so I'm surprised you're applying double-standards to games-consoles when they're almost identical in nature to Apple's walled-garden.
I'm not happy that the Nintendo Switch is locked down, and any ruling against Apple which also applied to console manufacturers would be great news in my book. I just have better things to be angry about.
The thing is, I feel quite comfortable asserting that nobody uses a Nintendo Switch as their primary computer. If an app isn't available on the Switch, people can download it on something else. If an app isn't available on the iPhone, protesters in Hong Kong die: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21210678
Locked down consoles are regrettable; locked down phones are an affront to free society.
> I'm not happy that the Nintendo Switch is locked down, and any ruling against Apple which also applied to console manufacturers would be great news in my book. I just have better things to be angry about.
I'm just sad about where the technology world is heading
Well, I guess that's the other thing—Nintendo has been doing this for as long as they've been in the business. The NES launched with a so-called "lockout chip" to block unlicensed software. This was a key part of Nintendo's strategy for the NES, which launched after the so-called video game crash of 1989, when consumers stopped buying video games because they'd been burned by too many low-quality cash grabs. Nintendo's "seal of quality" program enforced very high standards, unlike anything seen on any platform today.
I hesitate to bring this up, because an old bad thing is still a bad thing. But it's not a new bad thing.
While I generally agree, I think the point most people have with being OK with game consoles and not iPhones boils down to:
A. Game consoles are sold at a loss or very near-cost; often they only end up making some <5% per-unit profit due to the sheer volume of their production. Devices with direct evidence for this are PS5[0] and Steam Deck[1]. For iPhones, it can feel unfair when apple is making app store margins on top of their 30%+ per-device margins, but I support the idea that Apple's profit margins take into account app store margins and the devices would be x% more each year if developers could go completely without IAP for in-app digital purchases.
B. Nintendo et al. specifically sell these as "game consoles", so combined with (A), it feels fine that they get their 30%. For iOS, being locked into the App Store serves only the purpose of total security, where basically nothing downloaded from the app store can siphon data from other apps via a sandbox escape or otherwise jailbreak the phone for silent spyware purposes.
[1] https://www.windowscentral.com/internet-browser-may-be-remov... [2] https://www.reviewgeek.com/98799/you-can-now-play-google-sta...