Apple might not be as badly affected by CCI as Google was.

According to competition attorneys, the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) verdict in the antitrust lawsuit against Apple may not be as harsh as the one against Google. The internet giant may use the same justifications it used in the historic anti-competition suit against gaming company Epic Games in the US to defend its App Store business methods, hoping to avoid fines and regulatory rulings similar to those Google received in India.

Apple might be able to dodge charges because it does not have a licensable operating system, unlike Google, which is facing a 936 crore fine for its Play Store billing practises. In truth, CCI claimed that there were differences between the Google and Apple ecosystems since Google forces app developers offering services and digital goods on the Play Store to use its own billing system.

According to CCI’s order from last week, Google’s practise of requiring the use of its own billing methods on the Play Store in order to earn commissions violates Indian competition laws. The CCI assessed Google a 936 crore rupee fine and ordered it to make its billing ecosystem accessible to outside outlets within 90 days of the ruling. It is anticipated that Google will contest the CCI order.

“CCI had stated in its inquiry order to Apple that the App Store is the only mechanism for developers to connect with Apple’s customer base. Once there, all Apple rules must be followed. Therefore, Apple will likely face the same future unless they can prove that this restriction is justified and show that safety, privacy, or other factors are compelling enough to show that the App Store is pro-consumer enough to outweigh the restrictive market effects, said a competition lawyer who asked to remain anonymous.

Senior vice-president of software engineering at Apple, Craig Federighi, testified in court during the Epic Games trial that the Mac desktop operating system is far more vulnerable to various types of cyberattacks because it allows the use of third-party download sources and invoicing systems. According to the CEO, iOS does not support alternative app download locations or third-party billing systems and is significantly different in this regard. Although Apple was forced to let third-party payments on the App Store, the judge found that it was not participating in monopolistic tactics after Apple won the lawsuit.

According to the lawyer cited above, Apple would probably support this claim with the information that its market share in India is extremely modest. International Data Corp., a market research firm, estimates that Apple has a 3.8% market share in India by the end of 2021. Due in part to the higher price of its iPhones, Apple may attempt to demonstrate that its ecosystem constitutes an exclusive environment and is incompatible with Android devices. An Indian Apple representative declined to comment.

The most important point to keep in mind in the smartphone market is that, although having different software ecosystems, two devices may well belong to the same domain if they can be used interchangeably by a consumer. Along with this consideration, Apple can attempt to demonstrate that the interchangeability of an iPhone and an Android device is not comparable, the attorney said.