We are sold classical computers with full multimedia and network capabilities, loaded with trusted computing modules that make it quasi-impossible for any software to be executed unless it was signed by the hardware vendor or some other trusted party. Typically this means the platform vendor either has complete control over what software is distributed or how it is distributed. In other words, an artificial monopoly.
It's really not clear to me why these schemes can operate at such a massive scale without any repercussions whatsoever. If Apple started selling electric cars that refuse to steer onto any road not owned by Apple itself, under the pretext that doing so protects you from potholes and whatnot, precisely nobody would accept that deal.
So is there simply no legal precedent there? No political motivation to go after such a big economic sector?
The unfair advantage of these companies is that they can exploit their monopolies but still be immune from antitrust action because their own sub-markets are not bound by any kind of antimonopoly laws. Nominally the state sees 2 or 3 of them competing, hence they are immune from antitrust action as well. These companies don't even need to collude or form a cartel, since it s obviously beneficial for all of them to remain in position and just do nothing else. This will go on until, either a new thing comes along and replaces the internet , or , a new generation of anti-trust laws targets precisely those marketplaces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razor_and_blades_model
Also, it is not illegal to HAVE a monopoly, it is only illegal to ABUSE a monopoly. So as long as you are free to buy an unlocked computer system, and Sony are not over charging or bullying buyers/sellers etc, then Sony are not abusing you. So you have no complaint I'm afraid.