The difference is that Nintendo and others always marketed their device as a “gaming console”, aka a limited functionality device.
Apple, on the other hand, sold their devices as a type of computer. “There’s an app for that” and “What’s a PC?” ads killed their hopes of claiming that their devices were supposed to be of limited use and functionality like gaming consoles.
Personally, I don’t think that selling hardware at a loss is a good excuse to be anticompetitive with the software. I don’t understand how it (and any other kind of loss leading sales tactics) doesn’t trigger anti-trust laws.
On top of all this, Apple also sell their own hardware alongside their own App Store, just like Sony and Nintendo do.
The Apple model is extremely similar to the way the console manufacturers operate albeit with a few more freedoms on Mac.
The difference is that Nintendo and others always marketed their device as a “gaming console”, aka a limited functionality device.
Apple, on the other hand, sold their devices as a type of computer. “There’s an app for that” and “What’s a PC?” ads killed their hopes of claiming that their devices were supposed to be of limited use and functionality like gaming consoles.
I think everyone is aware that Apple sells hardware, that’s not relevant to the discussion. What’s relevant is whether they sell it at a loss or not.
Personally, I don’t think that selling hardware at a loss is a good excuse to be anticompetitive with the software. I don’t understand how it (and any other kind of loss leading sales tactics) doesn’t trigger anti-trust laws.