> There's nothing criminal or arguably even morally wrong about that.

Morality is irrelevant and criminality is for the legal system to decide, not you.

> Nintendo and Sony do not make 10% of the hardware margins that Apple does.

Which, again, is completely irrelevant.

> They are not analogous businesses.

Only because you’ve decided they’re not. And your arguments have zero citations to any legal precedence. Yet we do have legal precedence of lock ins on other platforms and their related app stores.

So the problem we have is the legal precedence actually works against Nintendo et al and now it’s up to the courts to decide if those prior judgements are relevant to Nintendo and its ilk too.

Thus far all you and your likeminded peers have proven is that you have a personal opinion. But you’ve provided precisely zero legal evidence to back up your opinions. So why should we trust your opinion any more than the highly public legal precedence that was reached between Epic and Apple?

“but they’re different” isn’t a compelling legal argument for why they’re different. Regardless of how much you might wish it were.

You don't seem to be disagreeing.

I assume by hardware margins you are thinking of component and manufacturing cost. However, the largest cost that has to be amortized over the life of a hardware product is R&D cost, which is huge.

Even by the component and manufacturing cost metric, the Switch has always been profitable, though DRAM and flash storage costs are putting pressure on hardware margins at the moment. Still R&D is the largest cost that each company faces.