I liked the article but there was a lot of statements about the case with not a lot of explaining explanation, such as, the Android app market was considered a

I liked the article but there was a lot of statements about the case with not a lot of explaining explanation, such as, the Android app market was considered a relevant market but the Apple app market wasn't. Why? What are the differences? Did the jury explain that reasoning? Additionally, I feel like repeatedly calling the charge to bill through the app stores a tax misleading, since there are plenty of similar service charges for things like credit cards. Maybe I'm wrong about that, though. However, this was a good article for laying out the relevant information on a tidy list.