> 'Cause this is a moral argument, not a financial one, and if you're fleecing the public at large (in myriad ways) it's more a question of the lord giving alms to his subject than it is paying $50 for a piece of gum.

The argument still breaks down at bigger numbers. If you have 500 different ideas for ways the lord should spend a negligible 1% of his money, then even if you have a good argument that the lord should do something, that's not enough by itself to show that any particular idea meets the bar.

If Google starts subsidizing their physical devices from their infinite money bin of advertising revenue, they'll run afoul of antitrust and anti dumping laws.

Whaaa? Nope, not how that works.

You can't run afoul of antitrust laws without being a monopoly. It's why Apple can make it so safari is the only browser available on the Iphone whereas microsoft lost a bunch of money (particularly in the EU) for installing IE by default on everyone's computer.

Android phones are nowhere near antitrust territory, specifically from google. Before they'd run any risks they'd need to actually outsell someone like samsung or apple.

Just because you are rich and potentially a monopoly in one market, doesn't mean you are in all markets.

If Google is deemed a monopoly in search (or advertising, or Android app store, etc.), using that position or money to try and gain advantage in another market (in this case, phones) is problematic.

And this way, they risk running afoul false advertising and class action lawsuits. Its not mentioned anywhere that the phone becomes dangerous to use after 3 years.