That passage doesn't make sense. Android already allows other app stores, just not entirely without friction. It's iOS which doesn't allow them.

Sort of but not in any practical reality. Besides the scare screens to make any alternatives look like malware, Google has actively paid developers to not compete with the Play Store and launched secret codenamed projects to undermine individual third party stores. Google has even tasked security teams with finding exploits in competing solutions to try to destroy the reputation of anyone who could launch an effective competing store.

That doesn't seem like abuse of monopoly positioning, though. It's dirty, but bug-hunting for your adversaries and responding to the proliferation of competitors is entirely normal and accessible. Google's biggest "scare screen" is the developer menu which rightfully warns you of the danger associated with third-party packaging. The only other mandatory menu is the one that asks for user consent to install a package, which is not scary so much as mandatory to prevent obvious exploit chains.

Google's approach to sideloading is borderline inscrutable, and I say that as someone that will gladly sell them out for their abuse of the advertising market. This lawsuit exists to grant faux parity for the Apple lobbyists due in their government mandated reaming. As long as the AOSP exists, it is literally impossible for Google to abuse Android as an anticompetitive environment for other companies. OEMs control Android as much as Google does. The same cannot be said for Microsoft or Apple.

Google's sin was paying other people off which Apple doesn't do because the option to create a competing store doesn't exist.

Except for the Android users who actually tried not using Google Play and know it usually results in a "Play Services are required" error message.

An application written using Play Services requires Play Services - shocking.

Even applications not using any of these services often require it.

Can you provide an example how would that work?

https://microg.org/ can replace services as needed.

It can't replace Play Services.

It can replace pretty much everything that isn't explicit DRM, in my experience. Google's own lawsuit against Oracle actually set the precedent for the legality of programs like microG: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America%2....

That's a shallow dismissal. Which part, why, for how long?

Huawei phones are still popular in my part of the world and users can pretty much use everything on them, including the banking apps. In the end, increased popularity of non-Google phone just made developers not require Play Services.

I guess the only notable exception is the... YouTube app? So what are you talking about exactly?

I don't see how this is a problem. Back in the days when we used to buy software for PCs you could go pick up WordPerfect or Lotus or whatever at any number of bookstores, office supply stores, or mail order outlets.

Fundamentally I see no problem with multiple app stores, it will be a boon for developers as the stores will have to compete over how much of a cut they take. Or developers can sell direct.

Android already has alternative app stores.

Nevertheless you can't install a Kindle app that you can actually buy books through: Google's monopoly has prevented this.

You definitely can; just get the Kindle app from anywhere[1][2] besides Google Play Store. I installed it via Samsung's "Galaxy Store" and I buy books in-app often.

* [1]: https://galaxystore.samsung.com/detail/com.amazon.kindlefs?l...

* [2]: https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-com-Kindle-for-Android/dp/B004...

I don't know about the samsung app store, but it's not available through the amazon app store. It's marked as "incompatible with my device" a OnePlus 10.