Comment Re:I will never understand this case (Score 2) 18
I just don't get how Google was found liable and Apple was not. Google had at least alternate store (Amazon) while Apple has had none. Google allowed sideloading so there was (and still is) a way to load apps not in the store while Apple doesn't allow sideloading. You can say Google suppressed the development of alternative app stores, but Apple never even had to suppress because there was simply no way to get them on the device.
Easy, you're looking at it wrong.
The market is not Apple vs. Google. it's Apple vs. Samsung, Nothing, Oppo, OnePlus, Nokia, Motorola, etc...
The Apple App Store only runs on Apple phones. Likewise, Apple phones only run Apple's OS.
Google provides Android OS to hardware manufacturers like Samsung, etc. Google also licenses things like the Play Store to those manufacturers under a different agreement.
For Apple, it's like buying a Tesla and wanting it with a V8. As Tesla makes the whole vehicle, they are allowed to offer just what they choose to offer.
For Google, they're selling effectively a crate motor to anyone who wants to use it. (Most manufacturers do this - you can get a Chevy big block motor and stick it in your Ford, if you wanted). But they then offer the transmission that goes with the motor with a different agreement - if you want the transmission you must agree to have things done a certain way in your car.
That's the key difference. Apple makes iOS for their phones, and everything on iOS is keyed to their hardware. You cannot get the App Store on a non-Apple phone. You cannot get iOS on a non-Apple phone. If you wanted a phone with a folding screen running iOS, you can't, because Apple doesn't make one (yet).
it's what makes the EU DMA a bit odd on Apple, since they're basically demanding the equivalent of Tesla to offer a V8 option if people want it.