LOL, if you want to do this, OK.
- Xbox uses an embedded version of Windows, think shoehorning the Windows behemoth into an embedded platform, it's not running Windows 10, you can't install Windows 10 on it.
- You are making the mistake of equating market presence with openness. Windows is a highly proprietary, closed OS owned by Microsoft. Microsoft is using Windows on Xbox in order to try to drag PCs and Xbox together so that they can run the same games on both, and falsely claim multi-platform openness.
- PS4 system software is a version of FreeBSD which is in fact an OPEN source OS.
As it happens I am a developer and I am fully aware of Microsoft's well documented and proven history of anti competitive practices, and closed systems primarily related to Windows itself, but also other products of theirs such as Office. MS is also a master of "FUD" - fear, uncertainty and doubt; which is uses to seed doubt and fear in the minds of customers considering competing platforms.
Yes Windows is near ubiquitous on PCs, but that market presence does not in any way indicate openness on the part of Microsoft as a software developer, platform holder or corporation.
I was laughing at your naive implication that MS is open because they embedded Windows on Xbox, even upgrading to "windows 10" because Windows is far from open and Microsoft themselves are even further from open. Microsoft have repeatedly used their market presence to eliminate competitors, competing standards and open standards. Please understand, this isn't an opinion of mine it's documented fact.
Microsoft operate on a policy of Embrace, extend and extinguish. This policy follows the general course of MS identifying a segment they want to dominate, they launch a product and appear to embrace all the existing standards and conventions of the segment. Then Microsoft extends their offering, adding proprietary extensions to what was once an open standard or an industry standard accepted by all. Finally, using their overwhelming market presence, Microsoft marginalizes competitors that cannot support those proprietary standards by creating false comparisons showing their extended products in a favorable light, and locking competitors out either by keeping their systems closed or charging prohibitively high license fees to use their new 'standard'. This ultimately forces competitors out and extinguishes them leaving Microsoft as the predominant player in the segment.
The idea that Microsoft should be held as an example of openness compared to anyone is laughable.
Now that is done, feel free to assume anything you like about my professional abilities, though assuming I don't know anything about software development would be a massively wrong assumption to make.