The underlying point is that it doesn't really matter (from a legal perspective) whether smartphones are more like PCs or game consoles when answering the question of whether it should be legal to sell "walled garden" devices.
I mean, it kind of is. If Epic's theory is correct and they win their case, that essentially implies that the "walled garden" approach is illegal and will prohibit hardware manufacturers from tightly controlling what software can be distributed on its hardware.
No. This lawsuit would have been thrown out in 2008 or 2009. Size and market power matter. Apple has over 50% of the US smartphone market and most of the smartphone software revenue.
There are over 2 millions apps in the App Store. That's a gigantic market. Game consoles only have ~2000 titles. App Store isn't a "garden", that vastly understates its extent. Apple has dictatorial control over literally millions of third-party products. That's dangerous.
Except Epic's theory of the case is not that Apple has a monopoly over smartphones, rather they have a monopoly over distribution of apps on iOS devices. Which would have been true back in 2008 or 2009 as well. If Epic wins their case based on the reasoning they have presented to the court, the same reasoning will apply to all "walled garden" hardware.
It's important to keep in mind that this was merely a preliminary hearing, not the full trial. It was abbreviated by design. The entire thing was a couple hours at most? The only question at issue here was temporary injunctions. Nobody had time to present their full trial arguments.
Sure, the hearing yesterday was about the preliminary injunction. But Epic's arguments have been made in detail in their extensive filings with the court.
