That's kind of a childlike interpretation, and mostly fits an anti-apple agenda. The two cases are only similar on the very surface, and nothing alike within th

That's kind of a childlike interpretation, and mostly fits an anti-apple agenda. The two cases are only similar on the very surface, and nothing alike within the cases themselves. Epic accused apple of being a monopoly, and using its monopoly power to price gouge. The judge in that case ruled that Apple's online store is akin to a physical store and physical stores have _for centuries_ charged monies to shelf products. -- In the Epic vs Google case: > that Google has monopoly power in the Android app distribution markets and in-app billing services markets, that Google did anticompetitive things in those markets, and that Epic was injured by that behavior. They decided Google has an illegal tie between its Google Play app store and its Google Play Billing payment services, too, and that its distribution agreement, Project Hug deals with game developers and deals with OEMs were all anticompetitive. These two cases are not alike, not similar, and thus have dissimilar outcomes. If Apple is not allowed to continue to charge for shelf space, then neither can walmart, Publix, or any other physical venue. That will never happen in the USA. Stores have centuries long tradition in charging vendors for shelf space to display and sell products. Google was naughty, naughty, naughty, naughty. Google exhibited anti-competitive behavior in 4 different areas.