The argument is that the review process gets away with being crappy due to the monopoly position, not that it is leading to the monopoly. It’s a symptom, not a cause.

Also it’s possible that specific clauses in the guidelines are anti-competitive. Fir example a guideline that simply disallows any app that competes with one of Google’s Apps might be seen this way.

So those are coherent arguments I think, I just don’t agree with them. The Play Store is a google product, with features developed and maintained by a Google. Other stores exist that compete with it, with features developed by other companies. The reason customers went with Google Play is simply because it had momentum and scale, and customers don’t want multiple stores. They want one store with one set of rules where all the Apps are, that will be on their next phone. Customers benefit from a one stop shop.

If someone wanted to develop a better store, with libraries better than ‘play services’, what stops them? If you want to inter operate with and use the services of the Play Store, you need to make a deal with a google, and the terms of that deal are standardised by Google. There’s nothing obviously illegal or a abusive about any of that, as long as the contractual relationships are fairly administered under the law.

>The reason customers went with Google Play is simply because it had momentum and scale, and customers don’t want multiple stores.

The reason customers went with the default is mostly because it's the default. Given the choice, we'd see a lot more competition.

>If someone wanted to develop a better store, with libraries better than ‘play services’, what stops them?

The anti-competitive google behavior where they forbid you to sell any android phone with Google Play if you sell any android phone without it? IIRC there was a lawsuit/fine in EU a few years back regarding this.

Yes Google was found in violation of Antitrust regulations and corrected that behaviour. I'm not here to sing Google's praises, but that issue has been resolved.

Google only gets to decide what the default store is on Google's own phones. Samsung's phones come by default with their own store for example.

Customers only want choice if it gives them value and benefits. Choice without value is confusion and drudgery. A one stop shop that has everything at reasonable prices and vets out the rubbish is, by itself, a good thing for customers. Of course there is scope for abuse, the EU ruling is an example of that, but to me I don't see anything wrong with the basic approach. These are their products, I don't see that anyone else has much of a right to dictate how they design them.

That's not what they said. They said that the fact people keep using the play store despite all of the shitty practices by Google (e.g. the review process) should be proof enough that Google engaged in anticompetitive behavior, otherwise people would go to a competitor.

Which is debatable but not as absurd as you make it out to be.