It's notable that Google does allow their customers to side-load apps.
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-...
if this isn't collusion and racketeering, then what is?
So has Epic’s parent company
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.
"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.
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.