They weren't forced, it's open source. They could have shipped it without the Android trademark and Google applications. Apple also forced out Skyhook. Location based services are central to mobile computing, it's in Google's best interest to keep that built in to the Android platform and consistent.
What carrier is going to carry an Android phone without the proprietary "Google Experience" apps?
You don't get the app store or any of the better apps that people expect now (maps, youtube, contact/mail sync) without the Experience bundle. And Google controls that.
This doesn't seem to be the handset maker or even the carrier controlling the options. It's another software provider limiting potentially competing software...on an open platform. Seems they're using their competitive power in one domain to inhibit competition in another. What am I missing?
Anti-competitive doesn't just mean "not good for competitors." It's about things that are harmful for the marketplace. For example, it excludes the ordinary enjoyment of copyright exclusivity. You might think monopolies are harmful for marketplaces, but as a society we've decided that copyrights do more good than harm, so copyright exclusivity is not in itself anti-competitive. A more relevant example: trademarks are not generally anti-competitive.
Imagine Bob's Booze complaining that Bacardi has pressured Thirsty Time Beverage Co. to use Bacardi rum in the "Thirsty Thursday Party Punch with Bacardi(TM)" drink. Bob wants to make a deal with Thirsty to replace Bacardi rum with his company's rum as a key ingredient in the punch. Suppose Thirsty Time always uses Bacardi's filtered water as an ingredient; can Bacardi insist that Thirsty Time also ship its famous rum (and nobody else's) as a condition for TT's use of the Bacardi brand name on rum-containing drinks? Would that be "anti-competitive?"
Comments
They weren't forced, it's open source. They could have shipped it without the Android trademark and Google applications. Apple also forced out Skyhook. Location based services are central to mobile computing, it's in Google's best interest to keep that built in to the Android platform and consistent.
What carrier is going to carry an Android phone without the proprietary "Google Experience" apps?
You don't get the app store or any of the better apps that people expect now (maps, youtube, contact/mail sync) without the Experience bundle. And Google controls that.
When do these actions become anti-competitive?
What would make them so?
This doesn't seem to be the handset maker or even the carrier controlling the options. It's another software provider limiting potentially competing software...on an open platform. Seems they're using their competitive power in one domain to inhibit competition in another. What am I missing?
Anti-competitive doesn't just mean "not good for competitors." It's about things that are harmful for the marketplace. For example, it excludes the ordinary enjoyment of copyright exclusivity. You might think monopolies are harmful for marketplaces, but as a society we've decided that copyrights do more good than harm, so copyright exclusivity is not in itself anti-competitive. A more relevant example: trademarks are not generally anti-competitive.
Imagine Bob's Booze complaining that Bacardi has pressured Thirsty Time Beverage Co. to use Bacardi rum in the "Thirsty Thursday Party Punch with Bacardi(TM)" drink. Bob wants to make a deal with Thirsty to replace Bacardi rum with his company's rum as a key ingredient in the punch. Suppose Thirsty Time always uses Bacardi's filtered water as an ingredient; can Bacardi insist that Thirsty Time also ship its famous rum (and nobody else's) as a condition for TT's use of the Bacardi brand name on rum-containing drinks? Would that be "anti-competitive?"