Imagine all Windows computers required you to use the Microsoft Store to download any piece of software, and you had to pay 30% for that privilege. Oh, and if every browser on the store was just another version of Internet Explorer (which Microsoft already got in trouble for around 20 years ago for just this one issue, much less all the others).
And on the Unix side it's slightly better where you can download apps outside of the Unix Store but they don't autoupdate while easily having the ability to, and that any OEM that doesn't install Unix Store Services gets their Android license removed or severely limited.
If state governments and agencies offer essential software for only two platforms and the most "open" one is restricted of most useful stuff because Google doesn't like it, no, there isn't enough competition.
It's a really basic point and I have no idea what's so hard to understand.
There is no single human being that can use AOSP as a daily driver given that even government apps use Play Services.
An academic exercise of open source isn't an excuse for an actually functional and useful daily driver. We've come as a society to the point where the absence of a cell phone makes you a second-class citizen.
If every single windows computer required you to pay them 30% for every transaction from those computers, yeah that would be an anti trust violation as well.
Microsoft got in trouble for the much less bad act of merely bundling a browser with the OS.
Imagine how much worse it would be if they took 30% of every transaction on every computer in the world.
2. What does that have to do with Spotify not wanting to pay IAP fees?
3. Should Spotify also allow you to "sideload" the mp3s you bought from bandcamp into their player?