> iPhone was not originally a game console. (Apple itself almost never makes games.) Indeed, iPhone was not originally a store either. Apple argued in court tha

> iPhone was not originally a game console. (Apple itself almost never makes games.) Indeed, iPhone was not originally a store either. Apple argued in court that App Store is not a separate product from iPhone, but that's easily historically refuted: iPhone shipped in 2007 without App Store! App Store was added a year later, so it's obviously not essential to the product. And IAP aren't essential to App Store either, because they weren't added until 2009. The failure in your reasoning here is your assertion that the iPhone that was launched in 2007 is the same iPhone that's about to be launched in October. They are different products. The iPhone 12 DOES launch with the App Store. If Epic wants to make it so any iPhone(s) that didn't originally launch with the App Store must be able to side load apps, I mean, go ahead. > Why are game consoles the relevant comparison? Why aren't they? In fact, I'd argue they are even MORE of a relevant comparison and MORE like a general purpose computer. Sure, Microsoft has not written Office for Xbox, but that's not a limitation of Xbox. You can (and this is encouraged) plug a keyboard and mouse right into an Xbox. It has a GPU, processor, hard drive, RAM, motherboard, etc.. It's literally a computer. > There's nothing in US law that says smartphones are supposed to be treated the same as game consoles. There's nothing in US law that says smartphones are supposed to be treated like desktop computers either. I have yet to see a convincing and consistent reason that they should be. I guess if you want to say that all computing devices should be open source and modifiable and all that, sure that's fine, but the distinction here is very much an arbitrary one.