One one hand we have an official policy announcement from Google, and on the other hand we have speculation about why one developer is having issues distributing one app.
Speculation is not on the same level as an official policy.
The EU changed the laws within their jurisdiction to require third party app store availability.
Historically speaking, Google made claims that Android would allow you to run anything you like (they didn't even have their own app store at first), and also that Android was open source.
They have incrementally been rolling back those stances ever since.
Look, kids! It’s a poor, little trillion dollar mega corporation. Everybody wave!
Meanwhile, walled gardens remain perfectly legal, unless you explicitly change the law.
Look at Microsoft, which created and marketed Xbox as a walled garden with no legal repercussions in the decades since.
However, Microsoft created Windows as an open platform, and then used anticompetitive tactics to retain control (just as Google did) and was found just as guilty as Google in the courts.
When Apple created iOS it was a closed platform. When they added the ability to create third party native apps they were clear that the platform would be a walled garden.
It clearly was not a closed platform in the way that Apple believed. It never should have been closed. I own my devices, so I get to decide what they run. It’s my electricity driving the chips, so I decide which bits get flipped. Simple as.
I do hear you, I just don’t know if I have the same perception of the facts on the ground. Google and Apple should be compelled to support users’ decisions about whether to defer to the corporate overlords, or not.
That's not how the law works.
As long as the device creator is absolutely clear to consumers that choosing their platform means that consumers will be buying into a walled garden, it's perfectly legal.
The only way to change that is to change the law, as the EU did.
A right that can’t be exercised is a wrong.
I appreciate you for making a point of bringing this up. I care as you do and want better for computing and computer users.
The judge who ruled in Epic vs Apple did mention in the ruling that Epic could have had more success if they had focused on the size of the 30% cut instead of arguing that Apple could not take a cut from the App Store at all.
You do have the right to choose an open platform instead.
Hopefully from a vendor that doesn't break its promises.
You're technically right that we havent seen Apple do the thing _in this instance_ but why do you still give the company the benefit of the doubt.