I disagree and I think we're all over the place on what we believe the point/meanings are of the words we type so best leave it there.
I will leave with this for others. PC Windows Gaming has largely to thank Xbox for its new found relevance today. The death of Xbox, or the "irrelevance" of Xbox is not good for PC long-term. Then again, most don't understand the underlying relationship, never will, and that's fine. The policy intent is actually meant to not be understood by competitors on a superficial level (the "let suckers be suckers" angle), much less the masses. I do like to quote Gabe on this because of how profound it's beyond the superficial meaning of it. Question: Who's better? PlayStation or Xbox? Answer: Xbox.
The PS3/X360 generation comes and goes, the Xbox One/PS4 generation comes and goes, the Series/PS5 generation comes, and the answer is still Xbox. The PS3/X360 generation highlights the problem perfectly however - as it was back then. The less Console hardware are like PC, the less palatable, and competitive PC is as gaming device. Hence Nintendo consoles of dominant old, the PS1/PS2/ PS3, and Sony being a "problem" for stakeholders of the PC Windows Gaming (MS/Valve chief among them). The problem as it was then for PC stakeholders, coming out of total market domination of the PS2 was simple. The more developers have to make a choice of which platforms to support, Console or PC due to drastic hardware architecture differences, the less likely PC will win that fight. Developers simply gravitate towards the market dominant platform if push comes to shove - that is, they'll go where the overwhelming majority of consumers are. The dominant platforms that drove the premium games industry were consoles, not PC. That was true then, and everyone with a brain on this knows a similar scenario can happen again if a balancing force ceases to exist.
MS Xbox, and the hit, the X360, was the bridge that brought the much needed balance to the "force" so to speak, so the market went from almost complete console domination of the premium games market to what we have today - an erosion, with a market shared with PC and PC hybrid Xbox. Xbox hardware and architecture bridges the gap with PC that Sony nor Nintendo are inclined nor interested to bridge because there is no self-interest there to do so - to the contrary, hardware differentiation benefits console platform owners. Hence, with Xbox relevant in the console space (significant market share), the PC market and the Xbox market together can keep PlayStation architecture and hardware in check, and from deviating from PC hardware architecture too much, lest Sony run the risk of splitting the market, and run the risk of losing, or coming out badly damaged - PS3 gen Exhibit A. All that MS/Valve needed back then was for Xbox to find solid footing (significant market-share), and the X360, as opposed to the OG Xbox provided that. The reasons for PS3's stumble are many, and a topic of its own. To stay on topic, Xbox is the balancing player, in favor of PC. If Xbox leaves and exits the market, then PlayStation hardware, in a dominant position, will no longer be tied to the shackles of PC hardware and architecture. Sony will then be free to throw its weight and dick around without less potential of blowback/failure hardware wise, and differentiate from PC hardware and architecture as it choses. Developers default on dominant platform in the market. Now you can translate that into less PC port support for AAA titles, less quality ports, which ultimately leads to less PC Gaming consumers as a result - less consumers also mean you get into a vicious negative loop to irrelevance. In that scenario, Gabe screams his heart out in pain cause it eventually hits the bottomline at Steam aka money, and in a significant way. PC Windows Gaming stakeholders dread a future similar to that of the PS2 era. Thus it falls onto MS, with Xbox, to keep that from happening - at all cost ($77 billion just recently but the money pit is way bigger over these couple decades).
Thus lie the reason for Microsoft to stay the course in consoles, protect Windows Gaming etc, and shift the industry to their desired position with a foot in the console market. Gabe's self-interest also lie in the platform that bridges the gap (Xbox), and thus makes PC Gaming, and by extension his store front, Steam, relevant, healthy and with potential to grow by having indirect support in the console market - a market that is a direct, not indirect, competitor for large swaths of consumers. It's the product being consumed that dictates competing relationship, not the device. The device is a means to an end - to differentiate and draw away from the competition.
Since PlayStation is now on board, out of the concessions and necessity created by the legacy of the PS3 generation stumble, consummated by the PS4 hardware architecture shift.... there is only one old dog left....Nintendo. Thus, a handheld trying to bridge the Nintendo gap in the handheld market, is why the Steamdeck, in part, exists. The erosion of hardware uniqueness and peculiarities of consoles, to be more in line with PC hardware and architecture is and always will be the end goal for stakeholders of the PC Windows Gaming market - a goal where PC market actors are bound to benefit the most. We already see the little ruckus PS5's SSD/decompression hardware design creates. Just imagine the rage that even further deviation from PC architecture can cause if Sony decided to flex without having Xbox checking them in place. Thus, Xbox is the example to follow, and the paragon choice for war dogs like Gabe. PC and console "indirect" competition is like trying to find differences in twins.... for a large subset of consumers. Folks make opinions based too much in the superficial flavor of the device when they should be focusing on the type of product being consumed, and the type of consumer doing the consumption. The flavor of the device is important for totally different reasons - as described.
