The social structure of the smartphone app ecosystem is remarkably similar to the cable provider -> network -> show situation from before too.
They’re clearly just computers, they’re “hardware you own”, but you’ve never been able to run whatever software you want on them. But it’s been like this since the 1970’s and there’s never been an uproar over it.
For me the difference is that you know what you’re getting into when you buy a console, and it’s clear up front that it’s not for “general” computing. I’m inclined to put smart phones into this category as well, but I can see how reasonable people may disagree here.
I think there is a huge difference. You can perfectly live your life without a game console. Even if you are a game addict and it is absolutely necessary for you to live, you could buy a PC and game on that.
Smartphones are a necessity nowadays. Some banks only have smartphone apps (or require a smartphone app to log in to their website). Some insurers want you to upload invoices with an app. Some governments require an app to log in (e.g. the Dutch DigiID). You need a smartphone to communicate with a lot of organizations and groups.
Smartphones have become extremely essential. And two companies can decide what does and what doesn't get run on a smartphone and they can take their 30% over virtually everything. They can destroy a company by simply blocking their app on a whim (contrast with game studios, which could always publish their game for PC or Mac or whatever).
It is not a healthy, competitive market. It is the market version of a dictatorship. And Google forbidding non-app store installs is making it worse.
Governments should intervene to guarantee a healthy market (the EU is trying, but I think they are currently worried about the tariff wrath).
Unfortunately, the copyright lobby of the video game industry was too strong in the 70s/80s/90s, so here we are.
In the future, when your whole house is controlled by a computer, do you want that computer to be controlled by Google or to be controlled by yourself?
People started free and equal, then some specialized into warriors[0] and gradually built deeper and deeper hierarchical power structures, called themselves "nobles" and started exploiting the "commoners".
At some point people snapped, killed a bunch of them (French revolution, US was for independence, etc.) and decided they wanna rule themselves.
And then companies started getting bigger and bigger, with deeper hierarchical power structures, the "nobles" call themselves "executives" or "shareholders" and the people doing actual productive work are not longer "commoners", they are "workers"[1].
[0]: And thus controlled the true source of power - violence.
[1]: Ironically admitting that people who are not workers are not doing real work, they are just redistributing other people's work and money.
I don't like describing it as cycles because it is too simplistic and pretend it is inevitable, robbing people of agency.
I prefer to think of society as a system where different actors have different goals and gradually lose/gain influence through a) slow processes where those with influence gain more from people who are sufficiently happy to be apathetic b) fast processes when people become sufficiently unhappy to reach for the source of all real world influence - violence.
This happens because uneducated/dumb/complacent people let it happen. It can be prevented by teaching them the importance if freedoms and to always fight back. But that goes directly against the interests of those in power - starting from parents who want children to be obedient.