Comment by ouid
4 years ago
I don't know really how to argue this here, but there is no such thing as a switch. It's a general purpose computer, implemented on a very specific set of hardware, restricted in its use by software whose only purpose is to maintain the illusion that a switch is a thing.
Do these things not exist?
- My LG Smart TV
- A TI-84 calculator
- The Peloton (exercise equipment)
Are you trying to argue that because the Switch uses components also used to build general purpose devices that this somehow implies some kind of general purpose “identity” on all derivative devices and an expectation that somehow every product should be more clear that “well actually, this product doesn’t exist because it has a CPU and a screen”?
I’m truly grasping trying to understand your argument here.
The switch runs extremely general software. Drawing a parallel between it and a ti84 is extremely disingenuous.
The smart TV is basically just a worse version of a monitor with a very cheap computer attached.
The peloton is a BIKE.
> The switch runs extremely general software. Drawing a parallel between it and a ti84 is extremely disingenuous.
I specifically mentioned the TI-84 because I have played Mario on mine, among many other things that it was not intended for. Respectfully, it belongs on the list.
But you still haven’t answered my question. Do these products not exist?
> The peloton is a BIKE
The Peloton is also a product, and a product that uses a general purpose OS (Android) and general purpose screen. It’s still built to do one thing.
It’s not just a bike - I have three of those, and none of them have a screen, and I can ride them outside.
The point here is that products are real things, have specific purposes, and often use general purpose tech to achieve a very specific outcome.
Is it cool to run Mario on my TI-84? Yes! But I wouldn’t be bent out of shape if I couldn’t.
2 replies →
TI-84 can be rooted to do pretty much whatever you want. Not sure about the other two.
Exactly! It’s also still a TI-84 calculator.
If we are arguing “it’s a Turing Machine!” Then you could argue that WiFi light bulbs are
> implemented on a very specific set of hardware, restricted in its use by software whose only purpose is to maintain the illusion
The Switch has a 720p touchscreen display, a reasonably powerful CPU, and 4GB of RAM. It's not fair to compare that to the specialized embedded hardware in a light bulb.
Do those characteristics somehow automatically equate to some expectation about the hackability of the device? Must hardware creators cater to a niche part of their user base just because they use those components?
Don’t get me wrong. I like to tinker, and I’ve had plenty of fun using hardware for unintended use cases. But I don’t understand the seeming entitlement that some feel that Nintendo is not worthy of their purchase.
1 reply →
Fortunately, I wasn't arguing "it's a turing machine". I'm arguing that a switch is a quite powerful computer that has been crippled by its software to do less. Much less. The result of this is the thing that you think of as a switch, but "being a switch" is not fundamentally different from being banned from a particular bar, or being allergic to peanuts, as a descriptor.