The case against Google had a completely different fact pattern. One that resembles the US v MS more. Google essentially pressured and bullied OEMs and other t

The case against Google had a completely different fact pattern. One that resembles the US v MS more. Google essentially pressured and bullied OEMs and other third parties into doing stuff that was beneficial to Google in exchange for licenses and special deals. At that point, you’re throwing your weight around, something that Google “had” to do because they started with a relatively open platform. Apple, on the other hand, preempted needing such tactics by making their ecosystem closed and heavily regulated from the onset when they were still nobodies within the market. That makes it extremely difficult to prove antitrust issues. Had Apple, say, increased the commission from 30% to 33%, then it would’ve been pretty close to an open and shut case because then it’s easy to argue that Apple threw its weight around once everyone was inside the ecosystem. But the opposite happened. This is also one of the reasons why everything Apple does is restricted and limited from the onset. It’s always easy to loosen the reigns later, but at their size, you can never go the other way without risking antitrust liability. FWIW, even MS, with their egregious behavior, got a lot thrown out on appeals and prevented being split up. The DOJ ended up settling instead.