So what will providing proof accomplish anyway?
I don’t agree. Something is better than nothing, even if things are heavily redacted. I as a common man may not interprete them adequately but there are people who can. Especially people from the intelligece community can check and somewhat verify if there is anything plausible with respect to the accusitions. This important for the allies of the Canada too. Canada is a member five eyes, so they can definitely validate their gathered intels with the likes of UK, US if the evidence deemed unfit for public release. So far I have not seen any of those countries conclusively made statements that they validated Canada’s allegations. The investigation is ongoing anyway.
It does not matter whether Indian PM admits it or not if evidence is there and the international community verified and largely accepts it as truth. So far I haven’t seen this happen.
Off course Canada can do whatever they choose in their jurisdiction. For example, many countries creates travel advisory for their citizens regarding which countries are deemed safe / not safe for them to travel to. If country X says that country Y is unsafe for their citizens to travel to, it’s perfectly fine. However, that doesn’t mean country Y is universally unsafe. But, when it comes to international relations we can’t just hurl allegation to another sovereign country without any evidence, independent verification / backing. Because tomorrow country Z can allege something outrageous about country A without evidence, will the international community accept that without questions as well?
Personally I feel diplomacy from both sides have failed us. It’s their job to handle these things more gracefully.
Android is an open platform by design. So anyone can develop their own app store / app distribution system. Anyone can use Android and customize it for the hardware they develop. But what Google did was secretly bribing the phone manufacturers to preload Google Play services and Google Play store as uninstallable system service and app and make agreements that the manufacturers will never resort to any other app store. They are being punished for this behavior.
In case of apple, their ecosystem is closed, i.e. there’s no competitor by design. Moreover, one can’t legally access iOS without an iPhone. According to Apple, just the physical hardware of an iPhone isn’t a product they sell and shouldn’t be considered as such, instead iPhone(Physical Hardware) + iOS(which includes their app store) is one complete product which they sell. As a manufacturer of this product they are free to do whatever with the product they develop and not necessarily have to provide access to 3rd party in their product development process.
TLDR: Apple’s argument was if there’s no competitor by design then there’s no anti-competitive behavior for the court to judge.