My understanding is that Google's behavior was seen as strong-arming their way into signing non-competitive agreements with competitors. For example, they'd ma

My understanding is that Google's behavior was seen as strong-arming their way into signing non-competitive agreements with competitors. For example, they'd make a deal with Samsung that if they want Google services on Samsung phones, Samsung had to agree to not let anyone else put competing app stores or payment processing other than Samsung's own and Google's own. Where-as Apple it's more seen that they simply are not letting competitors put their alternatives on their own Phones, which isn't seen as anti-competitive, but more as how Apple itself competes. And probably Google also internally used bad language that talked more about how to prevent competitors, etc. that might have been more incriminating. So I think they see it more like if CocaCola told Walgreens they won't sell Coke products at Walgreens if Walgreens caries Pepsi products. Where Coke is seen as such a big player, that their leading market position forces Walgreens to agree, because not selling Coke would harm them financially so much due to the market leading position of Coke, but also it's seen as a anti-competitive agreement from Coke.