The Wii U and 3DS are both excellent emulators for a number of different systems once they've been rooted, and arbitrary platform exclusivity (especially with Nintendo) is a huge issue for game access and game preservation, particularly for games on discontinued systems. Emulation/portability helps with all of that, even when it's not officially supported.
There are potentially console-specific economic reasons why we might not want to give people the freedom to root their own consoles without exploits, but importantly those are pretty console-specific. The economics of profitability for game manufacturers are pretty much the only good argument for letting consoles be so locked down, and I'm not 100% convinced even they are a good justification. But regardless of whether or not they're a good justification, they don't really apply to iPhones, products that aren't sold at a loss and don't base their entire model around recouping costs through software sales.
And absent those economic arguments, of course it would be good to allow users to load homebrew onto consoles and/or to install emulators that allow loading games from other consoles. It would be wild for anyone to look at forcibly, artificially tying games/software to a specific piece of hardware with a limited lifetime and limited availability, and view that as anything other than at best a necessary evil.
If Playstation is a cheaper source of compute power than consumer hardware, the customer should be able to turn it into a compute cluster, as many people did (1). That doesn't mean Sony has to provide support or warranty for it, it means they shouldn't raise intentional obstructions in the way
The issue would be Nintendo shutting off access to a subset of hardware features except for themselves for no reason other than Sony not being able to publish a functioning game or other software
And developers don't have to sell through the Sony or Nintendo stores; they can sell through their own store, or through physical retailers.
So, in other words nothing at all like the Apple app ecosystem.
Imagine if an user of a Visa credit card must be allowed to use the same magnetic stripe on the Mastercard network. Do you support that? How is Apple doing anything different?
Erm, the EU has pretty much already done that. Payment networks must support competitors running over their terminals and network for a fair price.
Go lookup up EuroPay, didn’t quite pan out how the EU expected. But if you wanna start a new payment network in the EU, MasterCard must help you out.
There’s no real opportunity for either MasterCard or Visa to rent seek in an effective manner. Compared to the US where interchange is sky high, despite slightly greater competition, the EU has a pretty good deal. Also regs like PSD2 further push/incentivise payment networks and banks to reduce fraud losses further, and thus reduce the costs that are ultimately borne by consumers and merchants.
If you think that a company is a monopoly/duopoly, that's an argument for forcing them to support more interoperability with competitors, not less.
But they should _obviously_ be able to dictate which power utility companies used to charge the car. Nobody knows what ampere or frequency non-Tesla electricity comes in. Only Tesla knows how to delivery electricity properly. /s
Regulation makes sense if there's no alternative to (easily) switch to, but that also means that the first principle of a regulations regime should be to create the conditions so that all possible alternatives can flourish. Failing that (as I think the EU has with software tech), restricting incumbents is the logical choice.
What if it's a terrible idea, but is outweighed by other good decisions Tesla makes? Should they be encouraged to ruin things just enough that it's still worth buying their products? As long as the ppm is just above lethal limits, does it matter who is poisoning the well?
Remember that Tesla can just send a OTA update to remove artificial software limits on the same battery capacity during disasters (Model S and X with the same battery capacity).
TL:DR you can sell food products in EU with shit in it because is your product and you are free to put shit in it, you have to respect EU laws related to food products (hope is dumbed down enough for some fanboys to understand)
BTW Apple has paid lawyers, they will release a statement surely with a slightly better defence then this shit, so let those paid guys do their job.