Defending themselves in this case takes the form of a desperate lie. I very much find it silly and made up in the last minute as it does not align with any prio

Defending themselves in this case takes the form of a desperate lie. I very much find it silly and made up in the last minute as it does not align with any prior communication or how the user experiences things. The Google Play example is accurate. iPadOS does not differ from iOS in this context in that they both run exactly the same applications from the same app store - application that themselves can implement iPad or iOS specific behavior of course, but that is internal to the app, not a difference in the store. In the same vein, Android TV is a separate OS from that in Google Pixels which is very different from that for a Samsung Galaxy - but they all run Android apps. Whether you give a name to the shared foundation (Android here, and what used to be iOS before they decided that iPad-specific features deserved distinct marketing) is not important - Apple users know that they see the same store with the same apps on all their devices (with an apple TV caveat as fewer developers add app support). (An app can itself declares requirements and dependencies that will hide it for particular devices, but if those filters counted the number would be way higher than 5 - it would be per-model, per-OS-minor) The Mac App Store has been marketed separately, so that makes two. An Apple TV compatible app also have to live up to some different requirements, but having apps filtered to a device based on its declared support and requirements is not different than similar restrictions within iPhone apps, and so it is not itself enough to fork the singular App Store. It is still presented as one familiar entity to users.