The handset market is a bogus statistic. Epic are not selling phones or phone accessories. The market in question is the $150 billion mobile applications marke

The handset market is a bogus statistic. Epic are not selling phones or phone accessories. The market in question is the $150 billion mobile applications market, of which Apple controls 60% worldwide, well above the threshold for regulatory attention in many jurisdictions. As for taking sides, I recommend taking the consumer's side, since the consumer is thoroughly shat upon by Apple's rules. The agreement demands that merchants on the Apple platform actively mislead the consumer about their purchasing options. At that point, whatever one may think of Epic's preferences, motives, or ethics, becomes moot. It is not unlawful to hold market power, or to use it for profit, but it is unlawful (at least where I live) to wield market power to mislead the consumer, and that's where Apple slides off the rails. However by taking direct action, Epic have the burden of proof, unless a governmental regulator decides to shoulder it first. Of course none of this actually relates to the judgement in the article, which is about Apple's embarrassingly nonsensical counterclaims, amounting to "competing with Apple shouldn't be allowed at all because then we make less money". I struggle to comprehend the magnitude of over-entitled, self-absorbed groupthink that could lead to making such a claim with a straight face.