Because when Google made Android it was allowed. Device manufacturers supported Android and PlayStore and gave up some control to Google because of the deal. Now Google is trying to back off from the deal after it has a huge network affect because of the exclusive apps, Play Services and Play Store.

Android would not have been so big if it were not an open platform. There were many other closed source OS's available ie. Windows Phone.

If Google backs off, it would be a bait and switch, and this tactic should be illegal.

Imagine if Samsung had its own OS, Apple with its own, Nokia (now with Android) and others with their own. We would not have much choice if Android were not open between phones because many of our apps would not be compatible.

iOS from the beginning was not open. It was known, so everyone knew. Android is expected to remain open because it was initially open.

TL;DR: Android would have been dead it were not an open platform. No device manufacturer should have give up control to Google, which Samsung regrets to date.

That happens all the time. Yes it sucks but it is a legal and common tactic (I hope you don't use chrome...), but also completey irrelevant in this case. What matters in this case is probably that they allow app stores, just aptoide was targeted. That is a huge difference.

What "control" has Samsung given Google that they regret?

They gave up using any Android forks and did not push Tizen.

And allowing the Google Play Services and Play Store to grow so big that their own store (in case relations go wrong with Google, they have a backup) can not compete.

They also completely underfunded the development of both Tizen and, especially, their app store. They offshored development off it to Eastern Europe as well, and even there it was less than 100 people, and not the best ones in the market (they weren't paying premium wages for Eastern Europe).

So if this is Samsung "pushing", they're truly a very sucky company.

This is lack of will on Samsung's part, not some magical market advantage on Google's part.

Try to read that back again. You are asking why if Apple is allowed to do this on their product, why is google not allowed to do this on everyone else’s product.

If google wants to make a phone that’s locked to an operating system with only their store they can do that, no issue. But that’s not what they are doing. They are distributing their operating system across the market and abusing that to force out any competing stores. That’s not ok.

If Ford decides to sell all their cars with Michelin tires that’s not an issue, however if Michelin decides that every company who uses their tires must also use their new expensive brand of windscreen wipers that’s a problem.

Apple's behavior is Tying, which is worse not better and is traditionally dealt with in anti-trust legislation.

(You can't buy a license for any Apple OS for use on other hardware. You can buy a Android OS phone from any participating vendor. The vendor can refuse to pay Google and install any store.)

Some things monopoly’s are prohibited from doing other things everyone is prohibited from doing.

Tying is legal for non monopoly’s.

> If google wants to make a phone that’s locked to an operating system with only their store they can do that, no issue.

I don't see Pixel phones being exempted from this judgement, so I don't understand why you're claiming this.

Apple produces all of its own devices and it's impossible to install another app store on the phone without jailbreaking (since app's don't have permissions to install other apps).

Now if someone created an app store on MacOS (Homebrew for example) and Apple started prompting users to uninstall Homebrew I'd reason they'd be subject to losing a lawsuit.

AFAIK you can still access third party app repositories such as AppValley or TweakBox on iOS without jailbreaking (you have to install/trust their configuration profiles however).

Apple could be forced to allow another app store, which is essentially what the EU is demanding here.

> Apple produces all of its own devices and it's impossible to install another app store on the phone without jailbreaking

Not completely true: corporate users can get special distribution licenses to be able to distribute to their employees. https://developer.apple.com/programs/enterprise/

A corporate internal distribution license is really stretching the definition of "another app store." I think most people on the sidewalk would only call something an app store if it's open to the public.

The only thing stopping you from installing this on everyone's phone however is the Apple secret police and the license agreement you sign with them. Technically it's possible with the right certificate signed by Apple.

Aside from the other (excellent) comments already made, Apple neither has the same market share as Android nor does it have a (near) monopoly in search or advertising.

Well, while the market share is an important side note, the point is that they are a platform provider too.

Microsoft had the problem a few years ago with bundling their Internet Explorer on Windows (and making it hard for the competition to have a chance). For Apple, the situation is a bit easier, as they don't allow any third party app stores at all, so any competition would probably encourage their users to break Apples 'Terms of Use', which in turn would make a lawsuit even more difficult.

In my opinion, platform providers should be obliged to open their platform for all kinds of third-party services & tools but I am sure, Apple/Google/Microsoft/etc. will find other ways to discriminate others on their platform and push their services.

Exactly, the law should be modified to force platform providers to guarantee their users:

1) the ability to install their own apps, no restrictions (IF approved by owner)

2) the ability to get apps from wherever they want

I would be much happier.

There are countries where Apple has a dominant market share (e.g. Japan).

You might argue Google is dominant in advertising worldwide, but Facebook is a contender in many countries (e.g. in the Philippines, Facebook is "the internet" as an approximation).

If you want to pick and choose subsectors, I am sure we could pick markets where mobile is one of the words and the second word is also something Apple absolutely dominates.

The world is a big place to make sweeping generalisations about.

Edit: parent article is about Portugal, not the world. A friend said to me: working in antitrust, on either side, a key is defining the market.

Note that Apple still has a 35% market share where I live and I'm sure that's mostly factoring in new sales. Apples's devices have big refurbished appeal. The market share is not insignificant.

This excuse is always mentioned whenever such comparison appears. But it doesn't convince me.

Having a smaller market share doesn't mean you can get away with breaking the law.

It isn't a get out of jail for free card. Laws still apply for any company however for a (convicted) monopolist different laws apply than for a random (successful) company. Microsoft and Google are convicted monopolists.

Except the law does apply differently if you have the majority of the market share.