> Game consoles are general computing platforms as much as anything. Like Apple's devices they are artificially restricted with a walled garden model. This is

> Game consoles are general computing platforms as much as anything. Like Apple's devices they are artificially restricted with a walled garden model. This is true that game consoles are walled gardens. But the question is, what is the market like for game consoles, when you compare common substitutes, as compared to what the market is like for smartphones. I would argue that the game console market is much less concentrated than the smart phone market. Anti-competitive practices are only illegal if a company has significant market power. And, IMO, Apple has much more market power than playstation, given that Apple controls about 50% of the smartphone market, in the USA. > What I can't understand is this argument that Apple specifically shouldn't be allowed to restrict software but game consoles should. The reason is because Apple controls half the smartphone market, in the USA, whereas game consoles don't have that much market power, especially, if one were to claim that the PC market competes with game consoles. (Which I say that it would. And I would also not say that smartphones compete with game consoles) Apple's actions only become illegal, because of the combination of both their actions, and the fact that they have significant market power.