I will only say there are two important legal issues to keep in mind in cases like this:
1. Every company is, in some respect or another, technically a monopolist with regard to its own products. Indeed if this were not true most would go out of business rather quickly.
2. Different legal standards apply to a company selling a finished product to customers vs a company licensing/selling a partial solution to other manufacturers who then sell a finished product to customers.
If you are interested these two principles are a decent starting point for investigation.
No it doesn’t, because the cases are completely different.
Google engaged in anti competitive practices by discouraging competing stores. Apple doesn’t have competing stores so there’s nothing to compete against.
The law is consistent in that regard because of the scope of the subject matter.
1. Every company is, in some respect or another, technically a monopolist with regard to its own products. Indeed if this were not true most would go out of business rather quickly.
2. Different legal standards apply to a company selling a finished product to customers vs a company licensing/selling a partial solution to other manufacturers who then sell a finished product to customers.
If you are interested these two principles are a decent starting point for investigation.