Originally Posted by Deuce65
Well again, yes and no. There are open source apps that will kinda sorta do this. Samsung for example can release their own mail program, but without the cloud servers to provide mail sync it won't do anything. Same thing with any sort of mapping software, unless you have the whole earth mapped you are stuck with google or nothing at all. So many programs are dependent on Google APIs even if they have nothing else at all to do with Google; you lose access to all of those. And of course you can get by without the play store, just ask RIM. Interesting that you used Amazon as a counter example when by your own admission they product tanked, and tanked specifically because they didn't have access to top quality products as a direct result of google's actions.
So you agree that there is a choice, making the anti-competitive line incorrect? Also, the Kindle Fire is still doing quite well. Only one single Amazon Android product tanked. The experiment is still quite successful.
What makes it anti competitive isn't that they developed a very successful product, that part is good, but that if you want to access that successful product, you can only use their product and no one else's. It would be a little like Intel telling an OEM that if they want to make machines with Intel products in them, they can't also sell products with AMD inside. Or a real example that happened, Microsoft telling OEMs if you want to license windows on any of your machines, or office on any of your machines, you have to also bundle IE and no other browser on all your machines, even the ones that don't otherwise have microsoft products in them. Not even MS went quite that far. What's interesting is that they even followed the traditional, "give it away for free until everyone needs it then start charging" approach to building a monopoly.
But as we've discussed, that is incorrect. AOSP is not a Google product. It is an open source code. Your analogy is incorrect. Google has no leverage to, and cannot, dictate terms. They know this, which is why they don't dictate terms. Google doesn't force Google Play down any manufacturer's throat. The manufacturer comes to Google, and asks if their system can run Google apps. That isn't a sign of a monopoly. It is a sign of meritocratic logic. This is nothing like Windows/IE. Google isn't bundling anything (Outside of the phones they make themselves. The Fed could order them to sell off their smartphone division, just like they forced Boeing to sell off their airline and engine divisions decades ago.). Samsung, LG, or whoever made your phone is doing the bundling. Google lets OEMs choose to voluntarily enter into this system. There is nothing anti-competitive here.
What is Google charging, and to whom? What does Google make that everyone needs?