Apparently you’re misinterpreting ‘not impossible’ to mean something other than ‘possible.’
Yes, it is possible Apple could be found to be acting anti-competitive or, more specifically, found to "unreasonably" obtained or maintained a monopoly position (as monopolies by themselves are NOT illegal) --
In a different case, with different charges, on different actions.
But, NOT IN THIS CASE. So many people just did NOT want to hear that Epic's arguments and its case were stupid weak. Or that Epic wasn't making the correct, actually, damning arguments.
If Epic wants more substantial changes, they will need to swallow their pride. Get off their high horse. Take the loss on this case. Lick lick their wounds. Then bring another case not based on "Free Fortnite". But, Epic won't. They're invested in their propaganda campaign surrounding it. And those who want to champion Epic - are too fixated, too invested in busting open the App Store and the 30% cut.
So, yes. There are much more damning arguments. The judge though saying "
The Court does not find that it is impossible" is for all intents and purposes, echoing that. But, the judge can't rule on arguments not made.
Or, ... maybe focus should be placed on why it is that developers aren't very much interested in developing for, not just the Google Play store, but the Android platform in general - be it 3rd Party app stores, or direct sales - direct developer downloads, directly on the Android tablet or phone. Then this wouldn't even need to be a case. But, it is, because no developer really makes any money on their Android apps because so few consumers actually play for Android apps.
Developers want to sell their Apps in Apples "App Store", these developers are willing to deal with Apple's rules and restrictions and willing to deal with the 30% commission, because consumers that own Apple devices are far and away, way more willing to open their pocketbooks and buy apps or services compared to their Android consumer counter parts.
