> I personally don't believe such things should be allowed to exist at all. Computers should always be real computers at all times. This "appliance" nonsense is everything that is wrong with computing today. Infinite potential, wasted.

This is great! This is the actual argument, so the clarity is wonderful.

If your starting point is to argue that NO manufacturer can be permitted to make a handheld mobile appliance (e.g., to phones what Switch or the PlayStation Portable [PSP] are to consoles) as a market alternative to mobile general computing devices, then, 100% agree that means there's no place for iPhone or iPad.

But then this seems weird, because these days everything has a computer in it, digital machinery to go along with mechanical machinery, and it's not clear why we get mad at Apple about "right to tinker" (that's not a real thing even though competitors attack competitors by gaslighting about it) without getting mad at all of these things.

It's not clear to me nobody should be allowed to fully integrate software and hardware (which are "just" different amounts of machinery or logic permanence embedded in one user experience), whether they allow "apps" as pluggable cartridges or not.

To borrow a non-computing utility tool metaphor: I consider the iPhone like a Leatherman™ tool. The maker works with people like me to decide an ideal mix of tools a Leatherman™ should be, perhaps offer me a few different tool mixes or sizes. I choose a known-good configuration I want, then I don't expect or need to be able to plug random third party accessories to the Leatherman™.

I find it anti computing freedom (as well as anti-libertarian and anti-capitalist) to forbid Makers™ from using their computing freedom to offer the marketplace an appliance that can take pictures or make phone calls or plug in apps. The computer form lets you invent new configurations (like a box of Legos turned into a model), then the appliance form lets others use it (like 3D printing the model). That should be OK.

So we disagree on the real argument, and that's fair.

I have a question though, what does this mean:

> Infinite potential, wasted.

I find dedicated gaming PCs far more wasteful of time and materials than consoles: wasteful of materials to have a predictable gaming experience, wasteful of time between wanting to be able to play a game and playing them, wasteful of time on an ongoing basis maintaining the ability to play a game.

(I say this as a person who made a living building and selling "beige box" computers in college, and who values understanding how to build a computer from parts.)

I'd argue that for casual gaming, consoles -- which also use fewer non-renewable materials than a PC sufficiently powered for equivalent game performance -- save far more time and materials "per gaming-hour" than they waste.

Yes, some of us have to learn to build tomorrow's consoles, but most just want to play a game. As in my opening remark, I believe our job as engineers is to learn, build, and deliver the "capability" to game, tailored to and fit for purpose.

But "infinite potential" is a lot of potential to be wasting -- what potential is unable to be met if allowing Apple to offer an appliance alongside others offering general devices?