[himinlomax]

> It's unfortunate that the percentage cut ends up overshadowing the real antitrust issue

The merits of the antitrust part are not supposed to be handled in a TRO. Its purpose is to maintain the status quo and limit possibly irreparable damages while the complex issues are debated in court. Here the 30% cut is important because it's a matter of deciding what a reasonable number would be.

In the case most favorable to Epic, it could be reduced to a lower value after a lengthy court process, but it would not necessarily change the nature of the market / economy. In other antitrust cases, you could have situations where the continued infringement by a near monopolistic entity would indeed qualify for a restraining order as the final judgment would arrive after the smaller competitor would be long dead.

[panpanna]

> In the case most favorable to Epic, it could be reduced to a lower value

No.

The most favourable outcome would be allowing Epic and others who already have their own sales and payment channels to use them alongside the app store payment system.

I think that's the main reason this lawsuit exists. I don't think Epic or Spotify really want to creat their own iOS app store.

[the_lucifer]

Epic (Tim Sweeney) explicitly says that if not for App Store policies, they would launch an alternate App Store on iOS in the set of emails to Tim Cook that Apple submitted to the court:

> 2. A competing Epic Games Store app available through the iOS App Store and through direct installation that has equal access to underlying operating system features for software installation and update as the iOS App Store itself has, including the ability to install and update software as seamlessly as the iOS App Store experience. [1]

[1] https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21807251/e..., Exhibit D, Page 2, Point 2.