and Google doesn't ban use of other payment processors or have restrictions on "you can sell elsewhere for less"

> and Google doesn't ban use of other payment processors

They certainly do on the Play Store. Developers have until September of this year to comply with Google's rule to take 30% of sales and use its payment system[1] in their apps.

It's clearly more price fixing on the part of the Apple and Google mobile app distribution and payments cartel.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/28/google-to-enforce-30percent-...

I hadn't heard that. Thanks for the new info. They'd be another store I'd avoid like the plague if I was selling stuff.

if this isn't collusion and racketeering, then what is?

The market. Microsoft and Sony have been doing it for years.

So has Epic’s parent company

I think you misread the question. They didn't ask what this is, they asked what would qualify as collusion and racketeering if this doesn't.

Correct... let me know what is if this isn't because companies colluding to set prices? not sure what I'm missing if this isn't it...

How is the answer misplaced? It's saying that you don't need price collusion or racketeering or mens rea of any sort to informally converge on a position.

> It's saying that you don't need price collusion or racketeering or mens rea of any sort to informally converge on a position.

It is saying that, but that's not a reply to the question.

The question wasn't "What is it?", as in, "What is this, if it's not collusion?"

The question was "What is?", as in, "What would it take to count as collusion, if this doesn't?"

"This isn't collusion, it's just the market" addresses the former question. It doesn't address the later question, the one that was asked.

With the implication that a super narrow definition of collusion is not very useful.

This form of rhetorical questioning is a pretty common idiom.

"If this isn't stealing, than what is?"

That's not an open invitation for elucidation on property laws. It's an assertion in the form of a question.

I agree with everything you have said there.

In that situation, the question being asked is "what would they have to do for you to accuse them of stealing?", and there's an implication/assertion that your definition of "stealing" is too narrow.

Replying with "this isn't stealing, it's borrowing" doesn't answer the question, and it's ignoring the implication/assertion.

And that's basically what martimarkov did. They didn't say a single word that addresses the implication that such a narrow anti-collusion rule is too weak.