[docdendrite]

I'm not so sure. You don't have to prove a monopoly. You have to show a selective targeting of a competitor. Manufacturer's using Google as a search engine allegedly have a different set of standards for their YouTube app than manufacturer's that don't use Google as search default. Whether or not that's how things actually transpired, it sure smells awfully fishy to an FTC regulator. This isn't about following rules or APIs, it's about provoking regulatory authorities to investigate Google so they maneuver more conservatively. And watch, now that Windows app will be approved post haste!

[tanzam75]

You actually do have to show a monopoly. A monopoly is prohibited from doing certain things that would be perfectly legitimate if a smaller competitor did it.

Example 1: The EU required Microsoft to offer a version of Windows with a browser choice screen. However, Apple does not have to offer an alternative to Safari. Reason: Windows was a monopoly, but Mac OS X wasn't.

Example 2: The EU permitted Windows Phone and Windows RT to default to IE, without offering a choice of other browsers. Reason: Windows Phone does not have a monopoly of the smartphone market, and Windows RT does not have a monopoly of the tablet market.