Google: “Any harm Epic has suffered is not irreparable and is of its own making”
Call me a corporatist, but I don't even think Google and Apple should have to justify their 30% pricing <i>at all</i> as "reasonable".  They could charge anything they like -- 100%.  It's a voluntary contract, and Epic doesn't have to engage in it.  We don't have to engage in it.  There's no fundamental right to offer an app on an app store, and if the scope of the market is defined as the market for video games/content, then none of these places are monopolies and companies/people are free to set their desired prices.<p>Who is the court, or any of us, to say what <i>should</i> be the charge for selling a game on a marketplace?   That's like someone telling you what your profit margin should be for a product that everyone wants.  Why should it be tied to your costs?<p>I mean, in many cases it is, due to customer demand reasons, but there are tons of things that you pay for that have prices nothing close to what it costs to provide.<p>That's why I think it will fail in court at least (maybe not the SEC, or Congress).  The argument that 30% is unfair goes nowhere in court -- so what should it be?   Courts are not the forum for that question.<p>Anyway, I finish with snark: if Epic invoked its same logic on itself, clearly it should reduce its profit / subscription charges to a "reasonable" level.  Epic is the only one I'm able to buy Epic games from -- clearly they're a monopoly and need to have their market-abusive behavior and extortionate pricing regulated?  Right?<p>I find irony in many people who get probably so knee-jerk opposed to Google/Apple and "on Epic's side" will find themselves justifying why they should be free to set their own prices when they launch their next product.