We want governments to prevent dominant players from cornering the market. Android has billions of active devices, the Switch is a tiny system in comparison so it isn't a dominant player.
Or are you trying to say that consoles are a separate category of devices and shouldn't be compared to number of phones? Then why are you even arguing here, they are separate! So either these consoles are too tiny to be dominant players and therefore doesn't need to be regulated like dominant players, or they are a separate category and shouldn't be regulated with the same laws as phones.
> Android has billions of active devices, the Switch is a tiny system in comparison so it isn't a dominant player.
But it is in console gaming. Even if you include Xbox and PS5, the Switch's market share of consoles is far higher than Apple's of smartphones. And of course, Switch absolutely dominates if we're specifically talking about the handheld game console market.
So what I'm asking is: How is Apple a monopoly in a market where they don't dominate and there's lots of choice, while Nintendo is not in a market where there are 3 vendors that matter, and they completely dominate the handheld segment?
How do you define "console gaming" that doesn't include smart phones? That was the whole point of this sub thread, arguing that consoles are just another general computing device.
If you say they are different in a significant way then why would they have the same regulations?
Or are you trying to say that consoles are a separate category of devices and shouldn't be compared to number of phones? Then why are you even arguing here, they are separate! So either these consoles are too tiny to be dominant players and therefore doesn't need to be regulated like dominant players, or they are a separate category and shouldn't be regulated with the same laws as phones.