The key points:

> requiring manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Google's Chrome browser and requiring them to set Google Search as default search service on their devices, as a condition to license certain Google proprietary apps;

> preventing manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices running on competing operating systems based on the Android open source code;

> giving financial incentives to manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-install Google Search on their devices.

The other two points are problematic because they apply restrictions to business decisions the manufacturer can deliver independent of how those offerings do or do not rely on the ecosystem Google developed and are therefore Google leveraging its business position to reduce consumer choice in its favor.

Like you I do potentially have a problem with the second point - depending on the details. I think Google has good technical reasons to take measures to prevent fragmentation of Android. Incompatible ecosystems arising would have very real negative consequences for the very competition that the EU is trying to protect. (as in, the only reason there IS competition amongst Android OEMs is because there IS an OS with strong compatibility protections). What I don't think they can do is level those protections at a whole company level - you can't say "Acer can't make a variant of Android if they are also shipping a phone with Google Services". Now I would be OK with it if there's real potential for harm to the ecosystem - if Acer is shipping the phones which are incompatible and claiming they run "Android", for example. But if they clearly fork it as a separate OS, put out their own SDK with separate APIs etc. then Google has no business telling them not to do it. So even this one I could go either way on depending on the exact details of the circumstances.

Google gives away Android for free. If it can't put google search and ads on it, it won't be able to make money to keep funding Android. Banning Google Search from Android will cut its funding, not sure it would be such a smart move...

Someone has to fund that effort.

Look, I love Linux as much as the next guy - and I plodded along with Slackware, then Ubuntu, then Arch as my main machine for many years. Heck, I even used Gentoo as my main box for a while.

But let's be completely honest - Linux on the desktop compared to say OSX, or Windows, or even ChromeOS - doesn't even hold a candle, in terms of cohesive UX design, user experience, general polish etc.

So whilst the OSS community seems great at some things, UX design and the user experience for the non-technical user hasn't been one of them.

I would suggest Android is a much more consumer focused product, whereas Linux has been a much more IT focused product, and their development priorities reflect that.

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..

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).

> 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.

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.

   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.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu

I'm not sure if it is fair to draw the line at web browsers that render HTML.

But the reality is, what Google is doing IS illegal. It's illegal in the US too, but Google bought off the FTC Commissioner and fabricated some academic studies and donates to a large number of our current elected officials re-election campaigns. Aka: Our government won't touch them.