[gpm]

> But that also applies to every single current game console and almost all other modern devices with app support, ranging from smartwatches to home automation.

That sounds like an argument that "every single current game console and almost all other modern devices with app support" are maintaining monopolies on app distribution on their platform, what's your point? Epic Games is not obligated in any way to sue every company breaking the law just because they chose to sue one that is.

[anonymousab]

Tim Sweeney has made some statements about this, to try and walk a line where, while the situation is equally true about game consoles, they shouldn't count/shouldn't be forced to be open because their platforms are less innately profitable. That is, consoles are sold at a loss and have a lot of R&D costs, and so they have more rights to maintain an exclusionary platform than Apple.

I can see the pragmatic sense in that argument, but I'm pessimistic and see it more as Tim trying to avoid destroying a relationship with strategically critical partners while achieving new strategic goals on mobile. Trying to have his cake and eat it too.

[gpm]

Let's assume your pessimistic case is exactly right, so what? He's allowed to sue one person who is breaking the law while not suing another one. He's allowed to eat the console slice of cake and complain to the courts that the apple slice of cake had the wrong color icing even if they both have the wrong color icing.

He's also allowed to believe that there is a stronger case against Apple and sue them first, and then sue the other people later if he wins the first suit convincingly, which is what I personally suspect is going to happen.

[hnarayanan]

His point is that it’s like saying “Coke has a monopoly on the sale and distribution of Coke.”