Talking about app store specifically, the difference according to many on HN would seem to be that Apple can have a monopoly because they use it to protect you, but Google should not because they use it to exploit you. This sounds pretty silly to me but it seems to be pretty popular.
> If it's a specific litigation (Epic v. Apple
It's probably this that GP is confused over
It's addressed, if not in this article, then others - the Apple trial wasn't a jury trial. Google lost the motion to not have a jury trial
Re:Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
by coolandsmartrr on Monday December 11, 2023 @10:30PM
(#38609045)
What government corruption are you talking about?
Re:Epic vs. Google: Google Loses
by frognumber on Tuesday December 12, 2023 @02:03PM
(#38616749)
More-or-less the standard stuff. When fighting for right-to-repair in my state, the major opposition was an Apple lobbyist. You can also look at DRM, worker rights in the hellholes electronics equipment gets made, etc. Not all of this even makes sense; better workers' rights would probably benefit Apple on the net, since they would hurt cut-rate vendors more, but c'est la vie.
PageRank was at least partially funded by the intelligence community via the MDDS program. "Started out pure good" is revisionist. They definitely started out as the darlings of the tech world, but "don't be evil" was always ironic.
* Google started out pure good and turned pure evil.
* Amazon started out mostly decent and turned mostly sleazy.
* Apple started out sort of in the middle and stated there.
"Middle" for Apple includes extremes in both directions. They do some pretty bad things with DRM, locking down devices, anti-repair, government corruption. They do some very good things with privacy, security, long-term support, and similar.
If it's a specific litigation (Epic v. Apple), courts are random. Very random. Legal processes have little grounding in any sort of objective anything, and kind of resemble a chaotic die roll.