It has nothing to do with Julian Assange. He's revealed... pretty much nothing of substance about Google that wasn't already out there (Heck, Google publicizes a lot of it). But Jared Cohen IS incredibly scary as an individual, not just for his attempts to work with our State department, but his desire to censor speech on the Internet that Google and our government disagree with. The fact that Joshua Wright jumps from Google paycheck to Google paycheck in government while "technically" not being a Google employee, and has managed to successful jump from the Obama administration to the Trump administration, is genuinely amazing.

If your company is going to take a stand against censorship, and is willing to leave a country to do it: Great. But let's not get off topic, and talk about how Google has been found guilty of antitrust, and fined for it. A trivial fine, mind you, Google makes that much in literally seconds, yet Google has refused to pay it, and has since already gotten fined again for noncompliance. And no move on Google releasing manufacturers from the illegal terms they're being held to with respect to the Russian market.

The issue with Google's patents is their hypocrisy. They claim they're against patent litigation, but only actually pledge not to abuse a tiny percentage of their own stockpile. We cannot and should not trust a corporation to not act in it's best interest. While it may not be in Google's interest to patent troll today, neither you nor anyone at Google can rationally say they won't tomorrow. Leadership changes, market positions change, and Google, first and foremost, has to serve it's stockholders. Microsoft doesn't so much get a "pass" on the matter as a stay of execution, because they're chipping away at a criminal operation.

You convict Google on hypothetical future patent behavior, but give a pass to Microsoft who is currently engaging in actual bad behavior. And this is not bad behavior in the sense that government bureaucrats decided it, but bad in the sense that the tech community finds it abhorrent. It's a mafia-style shakedown, one in which Microsoft went after Barnes & Noble, a company who is not even a large player in any tech market, for e-reader Android licensing revenues. Chipping away at a criminal operation? Give me a break.

600 million Chinese Android non-OHA smartphones are shipping, millions more in India, lots of evidence you can ship AOSP forked devices, so I don't agree with Europe and Russia's argument. My guess is, if Google just focused on the Pixel as the premier container for their mobile apps, and the rest of the world was AOSP, you'd see Google's services installed by OEMs anyway, because of the sheer popularity of most of them, just as you see on the Web. And Russia could have their Putin-approved Yandex phone, which should make bloggers happy.

It's funny that Googlers like to cite China as proof AOSP is really a thing and that competition exists. But the only reason it works is that as you point out: Google exited China. It's impossible to compete with an illegal monopoly, but we can easily see how much better the market works when Google is gone. So Europe and Russia's argument is, AOSP will thrive when Google (or at least, their blatantly illegal contract terms with OEMs) is gone, of which I agree completely. I'm sure Russia would be more than happy if Google left on "moral grounds".

Android's lack of Google services in China isn't because Google "exited" (and by "exit", means moved servers to Hong Kong), it's because the great firewall blocks them. If you take a phone purchased in Europe or the US into China, Google Play Services won't work without a VPN.

Do you think the Great Firewall is an example of "how much better the market works"? You know, where BAT (Baidu/Alibaba/Tencent) are the oligarchy who controls everything? Have you tried Baidu's search? It's terrible, even for searching for information on the Chinese mainland web.

Your "see how much better things work?" is that 600 million phones are shipping with worse versions of Android, with worse security, lots of malware/spyware, and government censorship.

I suppose thats a victory for the investors with Baidu stock, and Beijing's thirst to control the flow of information, but it doesn't look like a victory for consumers to me, or an example of "markets working"

Having not used phones in China, I won't comment on quality, but at the very least, it does prove the point: The only place Androids not controlled by Google exist in substantial number is where Google is banned. Not exactly a shining argument for your claim Google isn't a huge antitrust problem.