The problem is Google forcing the phone makers to bundle Google apps that has nothing to do with Google Play to be able to ship Google Play. There is precedent here with Internet Explorer.
And regulation didn't topple internet explorer - the free market did.
I don't understand why people keep trying to use the Internet Explorer precedent as an example of good antitrust maneuvers. It's literally the exact opposite.
This actually isn't true. The antitrust case is a big part of why Google (and hence, Chrome) exists today: Microsoft was scared that buying and killing Google, or blocking them from being set as the search engine on IE via the Google Toolbar would incite more penalties from the government.
I would have to dig around for the source of the original story, but the suit is the only reason Google was able to topple Microsoft's dominance. The antitrust case gave Google and companies like it room to grow, and an antitrust case against Google may be the only thing can launch the next wave of innovation that surpasses it.
not really, when google started to really take off, internet explorer usage was declining already.
nobody would've changed ie6 as their default browser because of the anti trust ruling. they changed because internet explorer was developed way slower than other competitors that slowly took over the market.
