Petition to Nintendo: Expose the Switch's hidden web browser

[VGMoose]

Low hanging fruit for Nintendo is just to allow another developer to make a browser, and put it on the eShop. They don’t have to support it directly. Security concerns should still be minimized, as constraints could be put on what the browser is allowed to do. (like an advanced Game Builder Garage)

[tofu]

:p

[sithu01]

@VGMoose ooooo

[MalWolf]

C'mon, it's Nintendo. Even if the whole world, excluding the people at Nintendo, signed the petition, they wouldn't change a thing.

[VGMoose]

This petition is actually in the top 10 (it's number 10 lol) of petitions to Nintendo on the Change.org website:

Nintendo

Petitions to Nintendo. Start a petition. Read their response.

Change.org (www.change.org)

The top one though they actually did do (Paper Mario Thousand Year Door remake) although they never did an official response.

[VGMoose]

(to clarify, yeah, they've never officially responded to anything though)

best bet is probably hoping that enough attention is on it for the Switch 2 to have improvements in this area

[mr cat]

where getting closer i see

[BIBLECAMPVICTIM]

is the nintendo switch th perfect console?

[Sparten177]

Man i Can't stnd with game companies messing up the fun and don't do a thing to fix things to build up the community.

[Selene]

Has anyone tried taking them to court to attempt to force them to provide a web browser, or at least respond to the petition? I am genuinely curious if enough people tried this what would happen, since they're ignoring this change.org petition and will probably continue to do so...

edit: I am not an attorney by any means, I just have represented myself in civil litigation on several occasions.

[danniltrifonov]

@MalWolf

yeah frfr.

[Catboy Gaming]

@Selene They're not breaking any laws, or harming anyone by not "revealing" the switch browser, it would be a giant waste of money

Besides, fighting Nintendo in court is a death sentence, they have lawyers that'll basically make sure you won't win

[niftys knife]

i have dns browser

[BIBLECAMPVICTIM]

how does this have 249k views?????

[vera.beraa]

[_nebula_]

@vera-beraa nice lol

[Selene]

@Catboy-Gaming True, Nintendo may not be breaking any criminal laws, but there is an emerging trend called the right to repair that has a several wins in several courts, and there is also the right to freedom of speech as well. Then there is the rule against involuntary contracts, although it is not as effective as some might believe it is.

Also, for a self-represented litigant who does their research knows caselaw, are you saying Nintendo will actually violate court rules, e.g. unlawfully sieze evidence, spread rumors, refuse to comply with discovery, et c? I am not trying to say you are wrong, because I know R* did this kind of tactic to an underage modder. They pressured his father into signing a contract and took everything from him.

[noxxlyte]

@Catboy-Gaming they also have a line of ninjas who hunt you down and make sure you cant mod or make content out of their ips again

ngl im starting to think nintendo's evi--

[Selene]

@noxxlyte lol

[VGMoose]

The most compelling argument I could make for the browser needing to be made more accessible is the DNS's usage numbers (and by extension, those petition signature counts). The Switch, while not a general computing device, clearly has access to several web technologies and web services (like Youtube or Hulu), and a large enough number of end-users clearly want to be able to do more with it.

This could make it similar to the "alternative App Stores" argument, such as the new EU legislation that made Apple allow third party app sources: https://support.apple.com/en-us/118110 Although I also need to point out that alternative app stores do exist on the Switch, via homebrew. I think the relevant piece though, is that by preventing web apps and non-eShop web services, users are required to go through the eShop, which Nintendo has a direct financial incentive to funnel users through.

I would imagine Nintendo's argument would be that don't have any obligation to provide the additional development work (or fund it) to make the browser easier to use, and to keep it more up to date with latest web technologies, etc. And even if there's a sizable interested user base, maybe they have data from their past consoles that demonstrate the usage and interest doesn't translate enough into sales. If a third-party service wants to target Switch users, they can do so through the eShop, which is better for platform security reasons too. And since the Switch is a dedicated gaming device, there's no obligation to expose any of its internals any further than necessary.

For a specific example, AO3 is one of the popular websites accessed via the Switch browser. But they could likely provide a better user experience by making a dedicated Switch app and releasing it via the eShop. Technically, even a company like Mozilla could try and get a lightweight browser on the official Switch eShop as well, and although they might reject that kind of app, I don't think it's been attempted yet.

The time limit seems like it'd be a gray area though– like the fact that they haven't gone even further out of their way to limit it more, or even explicitly block certain DNS addresses from being entered, that could demonstrate that they aren't taking active steps to completely disable usage of the browser. For example, even if the letter of the law required them to allow accessing the browser, technically they are complying with that.