[kbenson]

> No, I'm suggesting that their tactics are neither anti-competitive nor draconian. Epic violated the terms of a store that they willingly entered into. Apple owns the App Store.

I think perhaps you don't know what anti-competitive means, or are thinking of it purely as a portion of monopolistic practices. Apple's actions in multiple levels of their platform are by definition anti-competitive.

> They do not have a monopoly on ...

A monopoly is not a prerequisite for anti-competitive practices, it's just something the U.S. identified in the late 1800's and early 1900's as something that makes anti-competitive practices very effective, so laws were made to combat them because they are easier to identify and classify. Stopping anti-competitive behavior that harms consumers (though increased prices and reduced options) is the goal. Stopping monopolies is just a side-effect.