[ricw]

The difference is the monopoly that Google has obtained in Europe with more than 80% market share. Similar to how Microsoft was fined for making the internet explorer the default on their platform and thereby dominating the market (windows) a decade ago, Google is likely going to be fined and forced to open their monopolistic platform to fairer competition.

The thinking behind this is that you can't have terms that prohibit competition when you are the monopoly. If you do, you need to accept competition. In a way it's because Google has been too successful in Europe. It'll be interesting to see how the EU thinks a fairer market can be obtained..

[tdkl]

Except you can disable all that on Android and use other services/apps. It's also debatable if Android gained that market share because of this alleged forcing of their apps/services. I bet people chose Android because of price (Apple being a pricey alternative), more free apps/sideloading ability and they actually wanted tighter integration with Google services (fucking surprise).

The MS situation was similar in case that no-one used Windows just to use Internet Explorer, but the difference is that MS made it very unclear to disable/remove IE, not to mention the pain with setting the default apps (which came with XP SP2).

It's just an EU money grab (am EU citizen and only use Chrome).

[millstone]

The issue is not what customers can do, it is what OEMs can do. OEMs cannot disable all that on Android and use other services and apps.

> The MS situation was similar in case that no-one used Windows just to use Internet Explorer

Microsoft did a lot of shady stuff. One example is the "per processor" licensing that said, if you ship Windows on one computer, you have to pay Microsoft a royalty for all computers you sell, even the ones that don't run Windows. That's obviously very anti-competitive.

Google seems to be doing something roughly analogous with its requirement that if you ship a Google service, you can't also ship a different, separate product with your own changes. They are trying to use their leverage to prevent competition.

[scholia]

> MS made it very unclear to disable/remove IE

Microsoft had already signed a consent decree with Janet Reno's DoJ. This specifically allowed Microsoft to add features to the operating system. In effect, it didn't have a choice about building IE into the OS. (1)

The later anti-trust case was based on the idea of tying (forcing someone who wants one product to have a second product as well). Microsoft said IE was integrated, not tied, while the DoJ said it was tied. (Microsoft eventually won that one 2-1 on appeal.)

> It's just an EU money grab (am EU citizen and only use Chrome).

Less of a money grab than the EU fining Microsoft big bucks for bundling Windows Media Player, and forcing it to offer versions of Windows without it. (The EU refused Microsoft's offer to bundle three media players with Windows.)

(1) Microsoft also componentized IE so that different programs -- including third-party programs -- could use components from IE. This wasn't such a bad idea at the time, before the browser became the main focus for malware attacks and we wanted it sandboxed.

[xbmcuser]

   But is it the default the largest seller of android phones is samsung which makes all its own apps as default on its android phones. It even has its own appstore.