Key word here is "phones". 85% of phones is still less than half of all users seeing as mobile just surpassed desktop use sometime in 2015. And no, producer rights are not affecting consumer rights since this is a free market. I don't care how many Russian search engines or vertical product marketeers go out of business. They are going out of business because they are not offering a good enough service and I don't want google or any other search engine to channel my experience in not good enough channels just to keep their business afloat. that is not free market. When I and a plenty like me like a service we keep using it no matter if Google promotes it or not. If google had the power you are fear-mongering about we would not have FB, Twitter, Instagram, etc.

> If google had the power you are fear-mongering about we would not have FB, Twitter, Instagram, etc.

All of them were started before Google even started competing with them.

Show me a company started after Google had already established a presence in a market that’s either competing with Google (and having a positive prediction) or that has thrown Google out of the market at all.

it doesn't matter is they are established before or after. all it matters is that users have the choice and choosing these (and other) products over the Google provided ones. Google has bundled a form of messenger app since forever with its services. People just keep choosing other better ones. Google has tried 2-3 time to break into the social scene but even though Google Buzz was bundled with gmail it was not used. although everyone with the gmail account had a G+ account it is not even close to FB or Twitter. The simple fact of bundling is not a problem when there are choices. Amazon even takes Android, takes out EVERY SINGLE REFERENCE to google services and uses it for it's own products. So android can not be considered in any form monopolistic because it offers choices does not block them.

> it doesn't matter is they are established before or after.

Yes, it does, that’s the entire point.

Will we still see as much innovation in 10, 20 years? For that, this part is very important.

> The simple fact of bundling is not a problem when there are choices.

Google forbids OEMs from selling custom Android forks. That’s not choice.

As said, both the EU and US consider this anticompetitive, and are investigating it. If you believe you – which apparantly are unable to use correct orthography – are more knowledged than the top lawyers of the two largest economies, then, sure, go on.

Even Google has admitted they are doing anticompetitive bundling, their defense is that it’s required to fund Android at all. That alone should say everything.

Google forbids OEMs from un-bundling it-s other services not android. OEMs have the choice to build an Android with no Google service whatsoever like Amazon or some Chinese OEMs are doing. What they can not do is offer an Android while picking what google app they offer. Google apps are take it all or leave it for OEMs. for users they can choose to install what they like. I do not believe that I am more knowledged that Lawers but seeing already in plenty other examples that EU is more worried about businesses than consumers I can say that these is just another misuse of the antitrust rules.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Google does not license the Google Play Services to be bundled by OEMs who sell custom Android forks?

Not really, because Google also retroactively removes the license for devices already in production if the OEM later on decides to sell forked devices, as was threatened with Acer.

Or even just delivers parts for such a device, as was threatened with SAMSUNG and Amazon.