Nobody cares that Nintendo has a monopoly on games published for their hardware.
I think we would care if all the other console makers left the market.
I think this analogy applies to Android vs. iOS — and that's despite me being annoyed by Apple acting as morality police with regard to content, instead of limiting their rules to the security domain.
comparing video game consoles to the modern smartphone is an intellectually dishonest analogy based on numbers alone, never mind what each is respectively used for. but i don't quite understand what you mean regardless. (why would we care about Nintendo if all other game console makers did what? they all just up and randomly closed shops in this hypothetical for what reason/s?)
> intellectually dishonest analogy based on numbers alone, never mind what each is respectively used for
Neither should matter.
Also, if you think the analogy misleading, please say why rather than calling it dishonest (I need more details than you've given to understand why you don't like it in those ways): this is a sincere comparison, and it's hard to learn from insults.
> they all just up and randomly closed shops in this hypothetical for what reason?
Doesn't matter. The consequences of the hypothetical in all cases are "the only console games you can buy anywhere are now vetted by one corporation".
intellectual honesty is a concept the opposite of which i did not refer to with any intent to insult. what i mean is that, on their faces, video game consoles and smartphones are inherently different things. that you can play video games on a smartphone but you can't smartphone on a video game console is relevant. and that nearly everyone in the modern world has one (smartphones), but a relatively small number the other (video game consoles) is too.
it may just be that i genuinely don't understand your analogy.
Thank you — though it still feels like an insult, I will accept this was not intentional. (I bet I do the same at times).
Unfortunately I remain un-illuminated.
To me, an analogy must not be identical to the thing it is compared with: something identical would still be "an example", but an analogy is always specifically in the subset of examples which are different in some substantial way.
I can only think to give further examples of analogies which I think would be apt, and ask which would you accept as an analogy in this case, which would you refuse, and why?
Supermarkets: each brand controls what is sold within itself. This control doesn't matter, because we have multiple brands. It would matter if we didn't have multiple brands.
States within a federal nation: each regional government controls the laws within itself. Moving between them is straightforward, but not zero-cost. People care a bit, but they have to be pushing quite hard on the national Overton Window to get censured from above.
Transport options in specific geographic regions: Let's say you have the option of a car, a bus, walking, or cycling. The bus is mandatory for some people (disabilities, OAPs, school kids), so let's say those groups get free passes. Given everyone else (by construction) doesn't need the bus, in this scenario does it matter what price the tickets are or that the routes are fixed and limited?
Nobody cares that Nintendo has a monopoly on games published for their hardware.
I think we would care if all the other console makers left the market.
I think this analogy applies to Android vs. iOS — and that's despite me being annoyed by Apple acting as morality police with regard to content, instead of limiting their rules to the security domain.