please stop spreading this as though it were fact. The OHA terms don't prevent you from shipping an alternative browser. They could if google wanted to, but they currently don't.
And the only carrot has to enforce compliance with the OHA is the google apps suite including chrome. If you don't want chrome and the other google apps, you don't have to comply with their compatibility tests.
It works! The lack of an agreement between Amazon and Google has yet to be a hindrance on my new Kindle Fire. All but one of the apps I wanted is in Amazon's store, and that one app was available as an .apk.
That doesn't help companies like Skyhook(and Mozilla if Firefox too is banned by the agreement) because almost all OEMs are current members who are bound to the agreement:
HTC
LG
Sony
Samsung Electronics
ASUSTek
Garmin
Huawei Technologies
Sony Mobile Communications (joined as Sony Ericsson)
Toshiba
Acer
ZTE Corporation
Alcatel Mobile Phones
Compal Communications
Dell
Foxconn
Haier
Kyocera
Lenovo Mobile Communication Technology Ltd.
NEC
Sharp Corporation
Saygus Corporation
Care to guess the marketshare of Android handsets not shipped by one of the above?
Anyway, I don't begrudge Google doing this, I only have an issue with the bastardization of the word "open". AOSP and Android are very different, and when people say Android is open, they actually mean AOSP is open, since Android as shipped on devices is very different and contains a lot of proprietary things.
And the only carrot has to enforce compliance with the OHA is the google apps suite including chrome. If you don't want chrome and the other google apps, you don't have to comply with their compatibility tests.