Google doesn't seem to do any rent-seeking (as MS) nor does it try to lock down its platform to prevent any competition whatsoever (as Apple). FRAND is a shitty situation, but I think it's fair to claim even with that, Google is a much less threat to freedom than Apple or MS.

Just don't count on them to provide privacy as well.

I'm hoping for Mozilla to become a major player in phones; they seem fairly dedicated to both freedom and privacy.

I take it you don't advertise with Google? Google is just like any other company - they want to increase margins on their main revenue streams, and commoditize other areas so other large companies that gain revenue in those spaces are so weak they can't challenge Google.

For a long time, Google was not rent-seeking on their advertising platform, and gained a lot of cred. Then they bought double-click and it's been downhill from there. Google knows they're the biggest/only game in town and their prices (on their main revenue stream) reflect it.

On the bright side, Google won't go thermonuclear on you if you choose a Google-free mod. The Cyanogenmod guys conveniently provide instructions to install "google packs" if you choose to do so. I will not do business with companies that are into thermonuclear war.

The first and last Apple product I used was an iPod, years ago. Having to convert my music and videos to specific formats made the iPod lose its luster.

The strategy of targeting the big players in an industry has worked time and time again. We've seen it work with GM, McDonalds, and most recently, Walmart.

I'm not saying anyone else in the industry is an angel. Just maybe it's time to start letting people know that we care enough to weigh corporate behavior pretty heavily in the mix with product specs in making our purchasing decisions.

Some of the players are more equal than others.

It can easily be seen that a large amount of [inspiration/copying/ripping off - choose your adjective depending on viewpoint] was done of the original iPhone. There are a reasonable range of views as to whether Apple should have had the right to bring any action about that but they were clearly angered and used the available laws to try to prevent it (which due largely to the slow movement of the legal system they have largely failed to do). I can see a range of valid views on the proper protection from copying of products and I don't believe it is possible to prove one better than others (although some might be obviously bad). I don't see anything evil in one mega-corp using the legal system to try to stop another mega-corp from copying it.

From Samsung's point of view if getting their current share in smartphones costs them a couple of billion dollars in damages that would be a good deal for them.

The patent law is a mess. I would prefer patents MUCH harder to obtain but that could be normally assumed valid once granted and with a legal system able to bring injuctions fast enough to get infringing models removed before they are obselete/replaced.