Presumably they'd be open to the same kind of suit, which IMHO is appropriate.
The issue at hand here is standing: do consumers have the right to sue for antitrust violations or is that limted to the app/game vendors who paid the markup most directly? The supreme court isn't going to decide on the merits of the specific case (because the original case in district court was thrown out due to standing -- this is the appeal of that decision) or whether or not Apple's 30% cut is appropriate.
I don't think that's a fair comparison, since I can buy hard copy games from a variety of stores in addition to buying digital games. I can't buy hard copy iPhone apps.
Yes you can but hard copy games, but guess what? Those games still have to be approved by the console maker and won’t run unless they have a digital signature from the console manufacturer. It’s been that way since the 80s.
I've developed homebrew games on multiple platforms. I know that NES, GBA, PSP, and DS have little to no restrictions. The Wii has a few restrictions, but not many.
So you’re claiming there is no lock out chip even though there was a Supreme Court case - Atari vs Nintendo where Atari circumvented it and this article.
The issue at hand here is standing: do consumers have the right to sue for antitrust violations or is that limted to the app/game vendors who paid the markup most directly? The supreme court isn't going to decide on the merits of the specific case (because the original case in district court was thrown out due to standing -- this is the appeal of that decision) or whether or not Apple's 30% cut is appropriate.