This tells a lot about how much our EU lawmakers understand modern technology. While there's nothing wrong with this fine, claiming that Apple isn't in the same market as Android is utter ridiculousness.
They specifically excluded Apple (and Blackberry) as competitors in that market because they don't license to external hardware manufacturers. Google didn't contest that definition.
And investigating Apple for its licensing agreements with its hardware supplier probably would be a bit pointless.
Now, should the EU be investigating the lack of hardware freedom in some ecosystems including Apple's? Sure, sounds eminently sensible. But that's completely different to what the EU was investigating here.
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/202...
What's key in this is that it's about google taking their dominant position in one market and using it to exert undue influence in another market.
You don't really get in trouble for just growing your business within a market. You get in trouble for abusing your dominant position in one market to influence another.
You can see this in the restrictions identified
> those contained in ‘distribution agreements’, requiring manufacturers of mobile devices to pre-install the general search (Google Search) and (Chrome) browser apps in order to be able to obtain a licence from Google to use its app store (Play Store);
They used their position of having a huge influence with Play Store to force manufacturers to include google search and chrome, which are unrelated.
> those contained in ‘anti-fragmentation agreements’, under which the operating licences necessary for the pre-installation of the Google Search and Play Store apps could be obtained by mobile device manufacturers only if they undertook not to sell devices running versions of the Android operating system not approved by Google;
They used their position with Android to force manufacturers to push google search and the play store by not letting them even build other devices without approval.
> those contained in ‘revenue share agreements’, under which the grant of a share of Google’s advertising revenue to the manufacturers of mobile devices and the mobile network operators concerned was subject to their undertaking not to pre-install a competing general search service on a predefined portfolio of devices.
They used their advertising business to force out competitors in search. You can argue this is one market if you want but it's clear this isn't competing on the merits of google search.
They (Commission and Court) never claimed that there aren't any markets they both operate in (which there obviously are).
See the decision for more details, AFAICS it talks about Google's claim that Apple provides enough competitive constraint starting from section 145: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&do...
With this kind of thinking they'll just send a signal that building Apple-style locked DRM platforms is the only way to succeed - instead of building platforms that can be reused across manufacturers and can provide diversity in the market.
I really don't want to see another reenactment of Symbian with it's self-destroying fragmentation against Apple.
As soon as you successfully pressure someone into that kind of deal, it is pretty obvious that the product you use as leverage is dominant in some way.