I’ve already addressed this in other replies below. This goes beyond the existence of app store and into the abusive nature of them. Here’s some light reading for you.

Irrelevant, the news from OP is that secondary stores are now allowed on Android and iOS. Not defending Google or anything, but whatever abuse they did is irrelevant to this point. The fact remains, other stores exist on Android.

You’re just repeating yourself. Number go up, I guess?

No, 2 is a conclusion from 1. You didn’t even got through 1 properly trying to bring whatever bad things Google might do with their power, fact 1 is there are other stores on Android, fact 2, which is a conclusion derived from fact 1 is that Epic could have released their own store there regardless of the lawsuit. This takes Android off the picture from the remaining of the discussion.

Your parents should have taught you when you were 5 that just because other people are doing it doesn’t make it okay.

That’s not the point, if someone claims that a company is using their monopoly power to force a high tax on developers, but the tax is the same on every other store regardless of being monopoly or not then their argument is bullshit. Why do you think developers pay 30% to Steam? If they thought Steam didn’t provided value they would just not release there. But they do, therefore 30% is not abusive, it’s what developers are willing to pay for the service.

Well the EU picked up where the US failed. That’s why they have an app store. But Epic continues the fight regardless. As mentioned elsewhere, they won their lawsuit against Google with the state of California stating Google’s app store is indeed a monopoly. Epic is responsible for both.

No they didn’t, DMA is an extension of GDPR and P2B Regulations, it has nothing to do with Epic.

Highly doubt that that is a coincidence. It has everything to do with Epic.

Like I told you in your other reply, laws as complex as DMA don’t get written in a short amount of time, it’s impossible for these to be related.

You’re repeating yourself again.

Again, I’m drawing a conclusion from a point before. From 1 you have 2 which means the lawsuit has nothing to do with Android, and from 5 you have 6 which means their lawsuit had nothing to do with iOS either, since those are the two platforms being discussed we have the overall conclusion that the lawsuits and this announcement are unrelated.

You haven’t disproven any of the propositions, nor found any logical error with the conclusion from those propositions (in fact both times you thought the conclusion was just a repetition of the proposition before). Just claiming I’m wrong is not gonna cut it, unless you have any facts that counter anything I said my conclusion stands.