> Since terms of use are something Apple makes up, I don't really see the difference.

The difference is that Facebook and Google agreed to and were fully aware of the terms beforehand.

> I don't know why there's so many people who think putting something in a bullet point as a policy/law just makes it somehow different.

Remember those cyberpunk stories where not the elected governments but rivaling multinational companies are the law? This is how we get there.

Google will have explicitly accepted very specific terms at a corporate, much-reviewed-by-legal level when they got their enterprise certificate. It's not a "visiting this site means you're bound by the TOS" sort of situation.

>Google can make the terms of use "None of our services and any kind of services deployed on Google Cloud may ever be displayed on an Apple device" and it will have the same legitimancy.

Heh. They already have, to Amazon though. See all the petty fights Google and Amazon have engaged in over youtube, chromecast etc. This is a good PR move by Apple though, especially when game studios are clawing out of the 30% cut and people are beginning to ask for the right to repair or the ability to side load apps. Apple saves the day yet again by providing value through the app store.

Google and Facebook signed contracts and then broke the terms. That’s what makes it different.