Alright, now lets say microsoft did the exact same behavior, on every single PC. And made it impossible for you to install unapproved apps that did not give th

Alright, now lets say microsoft did the exact same behavior, on every single PC. And made it impossible for you to install unapproved apps that did not give them a cut. Would you really believe that such behavior would not break anti-trust law? Because the courts already ruled against microsoft in a much less extreme situation. And furthermore, are you really OK with that behavior, if microsoft forced every single windows PC in the world, to disallow unapproved apps? > The argument that 30% is unfair goes nowhere in court -- so what should it be? The lawsuit has nothing to do with the 30% cut. Instead it has to do with Google and Apple engaging in anti-competitive behavior, and using their significant market power to prevent competition. They should not be forced to change their price. Instead, they should be force to stop their anti-competitive behavior, and allow other apps to be installed, in an easier way (in Apple's case), where as Google should be stopped from forcing OEM providers to not preload the epic app store. > why they should be free to set their own prices It has nothing to do with price setting. That is nowhere in the lawsuit. Instead, Epic is trying to stop anti-competitive behavior.