It's silly in that it shows how ridiculous the situation is. No one asked for Apple or Google to be the wardens of what users can or can't install on their devices. Asking for a fee for this "service" is the cherry on top.
We've been able to install whatever we want on our PCs since the dawn of personal computing and it never was an issue. I don't see why we couldn't have a similar system on mobile devices too.
There are some people who are indeed asking for that and I have no problem with app stores taking a cut for publishing and marketing on their stores as long as there are other paths for people to get apps on devices.
Are you an LLM? Because you seem to have advanced an argument that you just called silly.
edit: maybe pull the entire thread into the prompt, rather than just the comment you're replying to? Preprocess to add some context around previous replies so you know they're yours? Not knowing anything about your previous responses is a tell.
The initial comment I replied to said "why would you pay Dell to install a game?" No one is making that argument. It is a strawman and that is in fact silly. App stores absolutely have the right to charge a cut to be on their platform and I have no problem with that as long as there are other means of getting apps on devices. I'm not sure what isn't clear here.
We should also apply the same logic to game consoles. Why should Sony get a cut of every game I buy? It's not like they even have hosting costs associated with it--I'm buying a physical game from a store. Why should I need to get Nintendo's blessing in order to make a game for Switch? Why can't I download games directly from the game developer's web site for any of these console platforms?
In the 90s we DID apply the same logic to game consoles. Sony, Nintendo, and Sega all lost or settled court cases that established a precedent of interoperability.
Sega's trademark rights were literally ignored as a "Fair Use" for a 3rd party to be able to release games for Sega's console, because the alternative was that it would be impossible to legally release a third party game cartridge, which the court did not like as an outcome.
But then we got the DMCA and laws and rules that make it not legal to circumvent DRM in an attempt to do the normal Fair Use things. That's the primary legal limit to running whatever you want on consoles. Companies were given the legal right to make a technical protection of their IP, and if you tried to get around those technical measures to do things that you had a legitimate and legal case to do, you would still fall afoul of the law.
Basically the DMCA completely obliterated the previous "You can't prevent a third party from touching your stuff after you sell it" that was status quo before. There's all sorts of vagaries in US copyright law about Fair Uses and "legal backups" but the DMCA destroys all of that. All you have to do is encrypt or even just xor your program/movie/whatever with a simple key and suddenly it's completely illegal to use any tool other than one provided or licensed by that company to interact with that data. It's insane.
The courts had given americans fairly strong property rights with digital property, much more closely aligning with rights for physical items and the doctrine of first sale, but the DMCA destroyed all that, because that's what IP companies wanted.
I think I didn't communicate well: I am all for forcing game consoles to also open up. If one can argue against walled gardens for mobile devices (and I would), the same argument works for game consoles, too. They're both, at their cores, general purpose computers that just have DRM and restrictive licensing slathered all over them.
