Because the situations are different? Apple has at best, 50% of the market. They sell their own hardware, and the OS is only available on that hardware. They don't force other phone manufacturers to buy iOS licenses even though they're shipping phones without iOS. You can't even buy a license for iOS except to buy the actual hardware from Apple. All the same software, with the singular exception of Apple's own first party software and perhaps some small indie softare, is available on the competing platform. The competing platform is sold by multiple vendors, comes in multiple different options and is just as well supported by 3rd party developers and businesses. The terms and conditions of the Apple store, and the associated fees are as bad or better than they have ever been. There has been no bait and switch, no undercutting the market to oust competitors. In fact, iOS devices as a rule are some of the most expensive devices in their respective classes. They offer access to all of your data in industry standard formats if you decide you want to switch, and Google themselves offer an automatic switching application that will transfer that data for you. If Apple dominates, it is because consumers overwhelming choose that. There is nothing that stops people from buying from any number of vendors that sell fully comparable alternatives, and no reason other than preferring the locked down experience that Apple sells to buy an iOS device.
> All the same software, with the singular exception of Apple's own first party software and perhaps some small indie softare, is available on the competing platform.
But what about the other way around; how does Apple ensure that third-parties can compete with their private entitlements?
Is it even realistic for an indie business to compete against any of Apple's provided services if they're forced to serve that business through the App Store? Apple's progressive pricing scheme seems to punish them for posing a threat to any first-party services.
