I think it should be common sense that both Google and Apple should be treated equally on this issue, regardless of what you think about the actual issue. Instead, we have two virtually identical cases, and they were decided in completely opposite fashions.
That I agree with in general, though they have different enough business practices that the remedy re:antitrust action could look much different. Perhaps for apple it's allowing multiple storefronts or payment vendors, similar (I know not identical) to MS being required to allow other browsers with parity of access to the OS. For Google maybe some sort of splitup. I'm just throwing these out there though I don't claim to know the best option.
Google chose a jury trial, rather than a bench trial. The judge maid their ruling based on evidence presented, and largely ruled in Apple’s favour based on evidence provided by both Epic and Apple. No two cases are ever the same, there are always nuances. Throw a jury in to that mix, it’s even more of a crap-shoot.
No. That is indication that it is working as designed. The key word that you used is nearly. So, not the same. They were heard differently too. The truth is that you’re upset because it’s Google and not Apple.
