Based on what I see around me, people just use the first browser they see. Until someone with technical know-how comes along, people will use Edge on Windows (and usually complain about how the internet is acting up, but that's another story).

The same goes for Samsung and its own browser, simply called "Internet": people often have heard of Google Chrome but won't go looking if there's a working "internet button" right in front of them. Other vendors use the same trick.

Personally, I would think this is a good thing as it takes away some of the monopoly Google has, if Samsung etc. would just give their browsers regular updates through the Play Store/their own app store (latest version I can find on the Play Store still uses Chrome 59).

There is no technical reason to install the Google app or to install Chrome. Vendors can easily install their own WebKit/Blink engines for all the WebView/technical requirements (as seen by alternative ROMs) and the Google app can be deleted without affecting the other Play Services.

I think this is a ploy to prevent companies like Microsoft from coming with their own ROMs that focuses on Microsoft applications (Cortana, Bing, Edge mobile, Outlook, Microsoft Office etc., MS have a near complete stack of applications for Android) without offering any pre-installed competition like Google does.

> People would install Chrome anyway

Which only serves as strengthening Chrome's position (Chrome being a I/O vector for Google's ad market).

> and they already dominate search, so why bother.

Which obliterates any chance of a remotely widespread alternative emerging. The homescreen search bar is technically a widget like any other yet it is the only one that cannot even be removed from any stock launcher!

Imagine a manufacturer whose part of its proposition (whether through deals or genuine customer interest) is for whatever reason to sell a phone that comes loaded up with Firefox (or Opera) and has Bing (or DuckDuckGo, or Qwant) as a search widget. This is currently impossible and the decision aims to change that. The fact that Google uses its Android - because there is no viable alternative platform - and Play Store - because without the apps the platform is useless to the general public - dominance in the phone market to strong-arm manufacturers into preloading extensions of its search and ad market is a huge issue, turning the "Google experience" on Android into an all-or-nothing proposition.

But there is a related yet more subtle issue that isn't addressed: log into the Play Store, and you're helpfully logged into all other Google services such as Gmail, Chrome, Calendar, Photos... The only thing you can subsequently prevent is automatic syncing, but cannot disable each one of those services at all (unless you disable the whole app). So basically you log in to download whatever app on the Play Store and you turn on a huge firehose aimed at Google's datacenters. As an Android user the feeling I have of the "Google experience" is one of coercion, not freedom.

BTW your iTunes/Apple Music example is interesting, although it could be developed further to better match the situation.

>Imagine that Apple forced telcos to block Spotify, to force users to iTunes, and if they didn't then no iPhones on that carriers network.

Doesn't Apple already do this with the App Store? You can't buy an iPhone with Spotify pre-installed and Apple Music can leverage its position of not having to give another company a 30% cut to undercut spotify's prices.

Exactly. Google isn't blocking other browsers, so the analogy is flawed. Apple is forcing iTunes to be pre-installed, so they are using their dominance on the iPhone to push many other services.

Correct, but Apple doesn't have an overwhelming market majority, so under antitrust laws it isn't capable of inhibiting competition.

going from the actual ruling against microsoft, that ruling was microsoft had a monopoly on Intel base computers and not computers in general. Apple has an even larger monopoly on A9, A10, A11 based computers. in fact they have 100% monopoly for those computers

But Apple does pre-install iTunes/Apple Music, and make money when users use the default music app rather than downloading alternatives. You gotta pay for the OS somehow, but people aren't willing to pay for OSes. So instead, Apple makes money through the bundled hardware (to use iOS, you must buy an iPhone) and Google through the bundled software (if you want to use some Google apps like the Play Store, you must also use other Google apps like Chrome and Search).

But Apple pre-installs it on Apple’s phones. Apple can do whatever they want on Apple phones.

Google is forcing installations on Samsung phones, LG phones, etc through their contract.

It is entirely possible what Apple is doing would be illegal IF they licensed/sold the OS to other OEMs.

Yeah, what Google is learning here is that you should never license your OS/sell to other manufacturers and never make it open-source and just go the Apple route instead, create the device yourself and make the OS completely proprietary and closed.

That would work if Google was really good at their own hardware. They aren’t.

Android’s rise to dominance was mostly because of partners like Samsung.

Personal preference but Samsung phones are the only ones which I see are comparable to latest iPhones in terms of speed, features and price.

Couldn't Google have had Samsung OEM phones?

With co-branding?

And all of the profits going to Samsung?

This would merely be a different way to structure access to Android, right? Android is closed source, but literally everything else is the same...

Except now it's not "anti-competitive," because the phone manufacturers are not "competitors" to Google.

Yeah, Google need to buy Samsumg or the closest one they can get and start doing quality hardware.

Which would allow google to gain dominance in the mobile market... NOT. Google/Android won because it was very open and flexible, but the moment they started to dominate they started to push their agenda on OEMs users…

Okay, now I am starting to see the argument against Google. Essentially, that they captured a lot of the market with "free" but are increasingly using the terms that come alongside this "free" to bully other manufacturers now that they're locked in with "free Android!".

They tried, but then Google had "free OS" that "everyone used" so it was almost impossible to make a dent in the google-verse. And now when they killed virtually any competition they are pushing their agent.

Recently KaiOS was gaining traction and what did google? Virtually bought their presence/dominance there… sorry "supported project".

Exactly.

This is so back-asswards.

You can be open. You just can’t use contracts to extend your monopoly to other areas.

This is not an open/closed dichotomy. This is a free/controlled market issue.

I literally don't understand.

If Google manufactured all Android phones, and Android were closed source, and Android came pre-installed with the Play Store, Search, and Chrome, I think it wouldn't be a problem, right?

That turns this into an open/closed dichotomy.

Again, they can be ‘open’ (sell/give to other OEMs), they just can’t use contracts to force those OEMs to help them dominate other markets/kill Android competition.

That’s what they’re doing here, just like MS did in the 90s with Windows licenses.

If Android was close there would not be any monopoly, I think this is the idea.

That idea is completely false.

It's plausible that Android would have nearly as many users.

Google, for instance, could have all of the current manufacturers agree to OEM their Android devices. Possibly with co-branding.

"But I can't make this work unless I squash the competition by abusing my monopoly" is not a good argument for allowing it to happen, even if it were true here. The alternative is not to have no operating system, but to have a healthy market of other, possibly smaller, likely more operating systems instead.

In real life more operating systems means crappier software because now developers need to create versions for each one in order to be profitable, and not the "vast array on awesome options" open source enthusiasts would like to imagine.

It's a constant tension. In the real world single party government is more efficient than multiparty democracy. But most of the world hasn't clamored for single party rule unless it's their personalo preferred party

This isnt true though. Samsung ships it's own apps as the defaults on it's devices as one example.

> Imagine that Apple forced telcos to block Spotify. But they do. Telcos are not allowed to pre-install Spotify on iPhones, are they? iTunes on the other hand is pre-installed along with Safari, Apple Maps and Apple Podcast.

Of course once you have the device you can do whatever you ... can. Similarly once you have your Android phone you can install an alternative browser.

In fact I have had Samsung phones with two app stores and two browsers. Guess which one was was I unable to delete without rooting the phone first?

I am not a fan of whataboutism, but in this case it just seems unfair that the creator of a (more) open ecosystem is taking all the beating.

Note: I actually hate the search widget as well as the assistant, but there are hundreds of alternative home screen apps.

Google doesn't offer an API to export your home screen config for use by an alternative home screen :-(

Most companies aren't in multiple different markets.

Honestly your comment is pretty much kindergarten level argumentation, so I think that maybe you should just take your ball and go home.

The question was regarding to the logic behind why Google is getting fined, while Apple is not, and I think I answered that question pretty well.

> Most companies aren't in multiple different markets.

If you sort public companies by Market Capitalization, how far down the list do you think you need to go, before you find a company that is only in one market?

Nintendo

Nintendo uses their games to push their game console.