The two situations are dissimilar in all the ways that matter. Agency pricing, which is what we're talking about here, is both legal and in widespread use across a variety of industries. There's nothing illegal about it whatsoever. Moreover, the reporter for your article got some fundamental facts regarding the case blatantly wrong, which may also explain why incorrectly believe that case has any bearing here.
For instance, the article inaccurately described agency pricing as "preventing discounting", which isn't correct in the least (e.g. see Steam). Under the agency pricing model, publishers get to set their own prices and the retailers take a percentage cut (in contrast with wholesale pricing, where the retailer pays a wholesale price and then sells it at whatever price they want for their margin). If a publisher wants to provide a discount, they're more than capable of doing so, and the retailer is more than capable of incentivizing them to do so, thus enabling healthy competition between stores.
What the article failed to mention by name was the single most important phrase of the entire case: Most Favored Nation (MFN). While MFN clauses--which specify that someone will always receive the best price offered to anyone else--are perfectly legal (e.g. we see them being used with wholesalers all the time), the courts ruled that you can't combine them with agency pricing, since doing so prevents competition.
More or less, wholesale pricing + MFN means that the MFN retailers get the best wholesale prices and then can compete by cutting into their own margins to provide discounts and drive competition. Agency pricing means that the retailers compete by incentivizing the publishers to provide discounts through their store but not through the other stores. Agency pricing + MFN, however, means that any discount a publisher gives to a retailer must also be given to all other MFN retailers. Even if a retailer were to cut their margins, the price wouldn't change since the publisher is setting it. And if the publisher chose to drop the price because you as a retailer cut your take, they'd have to drop it with your competitor too, even though your competitor didn't cut their take. That's why agency + MFN is illegal.
But none of that matters here in the least since neither Apple nor Google have MFN clauses in their contracts with app developers. As I said earlier, agency pricing by itself is perfectly legal and is in no way an indication of collusion. Quite the contrary, since agency pricing by itself is a fine way to have competition, and the fact that Google leaked their change right after Apple's announcement can be taken as evidence of that fact. One cut their margin, and the other had to do so as well to remain competitive.