Google was colluding with OEMs to stifle competition on Android, and that practice was determined to be anticompetitive. Sure you could always jump through the Google-mandated hoops and install a third-party store, but then you could also always install other browsers on Windows even when Internet Explorer was the default, and that was also determined to be anticompetitive.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Which is silly, since Apple has gone beyond colluding, and simply blocks everything they can within their walled garden. You've never even had the option to install other app stores or sideload apps on an iPhone. Meanwhile, you've always been able to on Android. For the past several years it will even hold your hand and highlight/show you what options you need to allow to do it within the OS.

[–] Stovetop 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I agree, but that's what the courts decided. IANAL but I'm assuming it hinges on the pretense that Android is supposed to be an open ecosystem where partners and OEMs are given fair treatment, while iOS is a top-to-bottom "product" controlled by a single company that makes their own business arrangements.

In short, Apple deciding to block Epic from having their own app store, fine. Google bribing/coercing Android OEMs to prioritize the Play Store and not pre-install or facilitate the Epic Store, not fine.

I don't think the courts would have cared if Google locked down their own Pixel phones to block out Epic, but it's the act of throwing their weight around as the OS provider to their business partners (the OEMs) that they took issue with.