Comment by lucb1e
1 day ago
Isn't the story that some gaming consoles were sold at or under cost price and the markup was on the game sales? I don't know if it's fair to require that needs to be unlocked
Yet I 100% agree on a generic computing device and they're not really that different in the end. Maybe that it needs to be unlockable after it has been on the market for 4 years or so (all units, no matter when they were sold, no matter if support ended)
Or maybe undercutting the competition like this to make it back later on games is not a profit model we should want? And that everything should just be unlockable insofar as it has X amount of memory, CPU power, capable of doing IP traffic... something like that. (Seems silly to require a firmware unlock on your toaster)
> I don't know if it's fair to require that needs to be unlocked
Sure it’s fair, and manufacturers could price accordingly. Legally enforceable is another story.
> Isn't the story that some gaming consoles were sold at or under cost price and the markup was on the game sales?
Yes, but I'm confident Android smartphones aren't. Maybe Google is an exception here, but all the other manufacturers profit mostly from the hardware and not from the Apps. Samsung has its own app store, but I think only a tiny minority of users spend money there.
True, though any regulation would (at least ideally) be generic about computing devices
> were sold at or under cost price and the markup was on the game sales?
To be honest that has always had a smell to me akin to dumping.
Differences between dumping and "loss leader"?
Consoles haven't been sold with a loss for generations, please stop repeating that to support DRM.
Didn't know that, thanks for the correction!