I think we just got the simple version and that in reality, there are hundreds of pages detailing as many points of contracts, agreements and precedents.

But generally, publishing to consoles is a more involved process for both parties, and game consoles are not expected to be open platforms. So I guess the business model of console manufacturers is more tightly tied to publishing contracts.

I think GP's point is, why are game consoles not expected to be open platforms, but the iPhone is? And who isn't to say Apple's business model isn't greatly tied to their closed platform?

At least as far as public sentiment goes, the only difference seems to just be precedent. Game consoles have always been locked down, strongly DRM controlled machines, while PDAs/smartphones have ... existed in a strange grey area. For whatever reason, people think they should have rights to their phone, but not as much for the game console.

Guessing it's because you can "just buy a PC" with greater performance and flexibility in essentially the same use domain as a console, but doesn't that apply to iPhones as well? "Just buy an android"?

>why are game consoles not expected to be open platforms, but the iPhone is?

Modern Society does not require a console to function. Most would agree our Smartphone has become the central to many things in our modern society including but not limited to business from all industries.

>"Just buy an android"?

Today, the iPhone has 66% market share in the United States, 75% of U.S. App Store revenues, and over 80% of time spent on the mobile internet. It has a substantial market that puts their Anti- Competitiveness in question.

I think that as game consoles become more multi purpose devices (as Xbox has been championing for a while now) that they will end up in a similar position as the app store.

> But generally, publishing to consoles is a more involved process for both parties, and game consoles are not expected to be open platforms. So I guess the business model of console manufacturers is more tightly tied to publishing contracts.

Maybe they're just asking for iOS publishing to become more involved and complex, tied to contracts. I still don't see the difference between an iPhone and a Playstation. They both have CPUs and RAM, they both have a locked down operating system (neither are general purpose computers), they both run third party software vetted by the device manufacturer, they both charge a percentage fee to publish on that platform.

> neither are general purpose computers

Is that really true for the iPad though? I know they are weirdly trying to convince people it's not a computer using their ads, but everyone laugh at theses ads too because that's absurd. It's definitely general purpose.

It's not a general purpose computer purely because the company decides what purposes are allowed and what purposes aren't, via store policy. Just like Sony decides what purposes are allowed and not allowed for the Playstation. Both products are computers, but it's hard to argue that they are "general purpose" computers.

Contrast that with computers where there is no authority figure exercising editorial control. Those are, by definition, general purpose.

By selling consoles at a loss, more people can afford to buy them bringing in a larger audience. And even the people who could afford a more expensive console will simply have more money for games.

Audience capture is indeed the answer, and is probably why Epic doesn't mind.

But there are way more iPhones out there than consoles.

Because the legal system is not some mechanistic program that computes decisions over cases. The legal system is (for better or worse) based on human judges that look at the entire context and make judgments of what is reasonable or not. Given that this is an antitrust case, the business model is absolutely part of the context.

Selling something at below cost to gain market share is a classic anti-competitive tactic. This aspect of Sony's business model vs. Apple's seems like it would be very unflattering for Sony if they had more market share. It's lucky that Sony still has strong competition in the form of Microsoft and Nintendo[1].

My personal take is that by saying "Sony is different though" Epic is trying to provide a fig leaf for a platform owner that could cause them real financial harm if they got on their bad side.

Edit: [1] Isn't it interesting thought that the 3 console platforms don't compete on what percent cut they take from software published on their platforms. All 3 are 30%.

Because epic is lying their asses off, they want to extract more money from Apple but don’t want to antagonise Sony and MS.