[troupo]

They have a literal section "(6) Description of the “comparator” platforms" where the very first item is "(a) Google and other Android platforms"

There's a section "112. On 10 June 2022, the CMA published the final report in its MEM Study, which contains a number of findings in relation to both Apple and Google."

It's amazing that you never even tried to read the actual document but already immediately assume a position that is trivially proven wrong.

[shuckles]

> comparable yet notably omitted from the ranges the tribunal considered

Interesting to accuse people of not reading the document in a post where you don’t read a 3 sentence comment (and reply to the wrong one, but we can chalk that up to HN UI).

[troupo]

This is the correct comment to reply to.

Imagine if you actually read and understood the document instead of pressing on with your ignorance.

The court considered Google Play. And explained how Google Play has the exact dame issues as AppStore. So whatever Google Play is doing is irrelevant to a case against Apple.

It's not a difficult document to read and understand. Just lengthy.

I would quote relevant sections, but that would be a completely wasted effort.

Adieu.