That would only occur in the event the Court rules partly for Apple (i.e. their market definition which includes Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo) and partly for Epic (i.e. compelling a competitive marketplace in terms of app distribution and payments), a potential compromise the Court may hand down.I don't understand why Microsoft and other are testifying for EPIC. It they win, either epic itself, or another company will turn around and use the same logic on the console maker's "exclusive app store."
Logically, this same rule would prohibit (or allow workarounds) to lockout chips/software, then not only will the console makers lose money on each sales, but they won't be able to get as many direct sales, and the shovel ware will start flooding the market. (A good history lesson is the 1983 video game crash, the Atari 2600 did not have any lockout chips or other security, and the unlicensed games almost doomed the industry.)
It would not occur if the Court rules in favor of Epic. The reason for this is that Epic's market definition excludes PlayStation, Xbox, and Switch. Instead, Epic is arguing that iOS, iPadOS, tvOS, and Android are general computing devices like macOS and Windows and therefore subject to anti-trust legislation (PlayStation, Xbox, and Switch are gaming devices, not general computing devices).
Apple is arguing that they directly compete with PlayStation, Xbox, and Switch, and as a gaming device manufacturer they are not subject to anti-trust legislation as they do not hold a monopoly in that market. Interestingly, it appears that this Apple Exec missed the memo.
So in this case, it is actually advantageous for Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo to support Epic as it allows them to launch their own platforms on iOS, iPadOS, and tvOS, without impacting their own devices. I'm sure Microsoft and Sony will jump at the chance to launch xCloud and PlayStation Now on iOS, which they will surely do if Epic wins. Lots of $$$ to be made by them if iOS opens up.
Last edited: