My two cents as a lawyer who isn't overly familiar with the facts of this case and the Apple case, but who has dealt with antitrust issues in his legal practice from time to time (including evaluating whether aspects of Google's Android agreements constitute illegal restraints of trade - the issue didn't end up going anywhere in our case for other reasons, but I did look at the facts and law relating to those agreements - albeit something like 8 years ago, so my memory is fuzzy):

My recollection from years ago is that Google has various agreements with device manufacturers and app developers that strong-arm them into using the Play Store, promoting it as the default, and discourage the use of other app stores. U.S. antitrust law finds violations more easily when there are multiple parties colluding in a way that hurts competition, so the result here isn't totally surprising to me. I believe Apple got away with it in its case with Epic in part because Apple controls the whole system, so there wasn't that same evidence of collusion. Apple is able to lock things down all by itself. That's a bit of a perverse result -- Google is found to have violated the law because they are *more* open than Apple is, and therefore have to work with others to get people to choose the Play Store. And I personally think it shouldn't be that way. But I could write a book about how antitrust law is too permissive in this country...

I saw some chatter down below about the jury's verdict purportedly being wrong because Epic breached its contract. That's a red herring. I was involved with another case where my client absolutely breached its contract, but we won the case because the contract was an illegal restraint of trade by a monopolist. That's the whole point of the case. If a contract is illegal, then you can't be penalized for breaching it.