That makes no sense, I'm sorry. The criteria ultimately need to be clear so people know what is allowed and what is not. Either the fact that Sony has a sell-console-at-a-loss business model is why they deserve a pass for anticompetitive behavior... or it is not. In the first case (what you're arguing) then Sony indeed gets a pass like you want, but it comes with uncomfortable questions you apparently would rather avoid. In the latter case then you're not even divulging what criteria you're using. You can't just keep waving your hands around and repeating how poor Sony's entire business model is selling these at a loss while refusing to claim that that's your criterion, it makes no sense.

I'm arguing that what Sony is doing isn't anticompetitive behavior at all. Period.

That's your desired conclusion, not an explanation of how you're reaching it.

And the only way that would make any sense is if you also believe that what Sony is doing wouldn't be anticompetitive even if they were selling their consoles at a profit.

Which makes that argument a complete distraction, given the sheer number of opportunities you've evaded to simply clarify that that criterion (or any other, for that matter) would actually make a difference in your eyes. Honestly, how hard you've avoided approaching this speaks volumes for itself IMO, but perhaps other readers will see this differently.

The reason it doesn't make any sense to you is you're still arguing against a criterion I never proposed.

You haven't established why Sony making its own app store the only app store on its subsidized Playstation hardware is anticompetitive. You're simply assuming it is anticompetitive and demand that I invent a hardware margin cutoff disprove it.