Not only that, Google provides APIs in newer versions of Androids that allow third party apps to provide all this stuff. When installing apps that provide those services, they just need to use the APIs to integrate into the system.
Such as, I have OneDrive installed, and Google Drive and OneDrive appear as accessible from any app that uses the new file loader API (which was introduced in ... 4.x?). Google is working with Microsoft to allow Cortana to be a full replacement for Google Now's "Okay Google" trigger, including "Hey Cortana" trigger while sleeping (on phones that support that).
I can also install any office suite I want without any API support required, I can also install third party music players (and get full music player API support and Chromecast support for players that support it), third party... anything. Even a third party app store.
From what I can tell, this is all about the Google Now launcher supporting Google Search only. You can install any launcher you want. Google Now cannot integrate into other search engines because of THEIR lack of an API, not because Google doesn't want to (I mean, they don't, but it's not their fault).
The EU needs to step off and stop ruining company's products. This is literally a repeat of Microsoft Windows shipping a browser and a media player , where any browser and media player could be used instead. The EU at the time, apparently, could not understand you could have multiple apps installed that do the same thing, and file types and URL types have associations that can be changed by the user.
The EU is dangerously clueless about technology.
And if they're not going after Apple for the same charge, where they won't let you use third party browsers on iOS, or third party app stores, or music players, or whatever, then they're just untrustworthy idiots that have no clue how the world works.
- launcher - web browser - mail - calendar - keyboard - SMS/MMS texting app
Not to mention the entire "skin" of the operating system including added and removed functionality.
Samsung even has their own app store on the phone.
All of the above apps are very much the default for their type (when such a concept exists) and in some cases, like email and calendaring, you can't set another program as the default (at least not through normal consumer friendly means).
What "default" are you actually referring to?
The main issue was that you couldn't uninstall or disable IE, and due to microsoft's dominance in the market the EU felt it should be possible to do so.
That's like telling Apple they have to unbundle Safari, then breaking all the apps that depend on the Webkit framework.... which is a shitload of apps.
The only thing N/KN editions of Windows do is force you to download the Windows Media Player if you choose to use it, and simply unhides the MSIE icon in your Start menu if you choose to enable it. And as for Windows Media Player, N/KN doesn't disable things like DirectShow and Media Foundation, which Windows Media Player is just a fancy front end for.
It was a waste of both EU and US money for our respective DoJs to have sued. Microsoft didn't stop you from using other browsers, and allowed any app to be assigned to htm/html file associations and http/https/ftp URI scheme associations, even back in Win98 when they introduced that weird "Active Desktop" shit (a Trident canvas element as a background image on your desktop, it was weird but interesting), Microsoft never stopped you from downloading Netscape Navigator and using it as your default browser.
Windows was the first OS to have a browser by default, and the second OS to have a media player by default (Quicktime came before the original Media Player in Windows 3.x, which used DShow's predecessor, Video for Windows). In fact, Apple sued Microsoft over allegations of stolen source code from Quicktime, and Microsoft settled over it.
Notice the EU hasn't sued Apple for having a bundled media player first (since 1991, or 25 years ago), nor having a bundled browser (since 2003, or about 13 years ago, or about half way between MSIE 6 and 7). Also please note that the EU antitrust case was in 2004.
Why is the EU so protectionist towards Apple? It isn't their company, they have no more interest over Apple than they would Microsoft or Google, all three are American and all three have about the same amount of involvement in the EU for local services.
Perhaps it's more related to stock Google Apps they're shipping with Android devices, similar to the MS bundling IE anti-trust cases? Google's Android apps are pretty great and having them ship on devices for free is probably a pretty big killer of competition, including these apps may even be a requirement to be allowed to ship play store.
This absurdity happened because Google isn't outright blocking 3rd party apps and app stores outright.
It does has some restrictions which resulted in Google Play not being available on Kindle devices, and market apps can't be hosted on the Play Store but it leaves them enough room to actually be some what viable which means that companies exist that can cry foul.
This is basically a case of give them a finger and they take the whole hand.
Google gives away the OS for free (speech and beer), allows competition on the devices, but requires bundling of its app with its store (which has competitors).
Apple not only bundles the apps, it explicitly locks out competitors with code, forbids competitors in their agreements with customers and developers, and IIRC forbids developers who write for its platform to also put the same app on any competing app store (which again are forbidden by contract and locked out with code).
In jail terms, Google puts its users in a light security facility, Apple users are locked up on Alcatraz.
As to why the EU plans this action on Google (first) is a good question. It is clear that the wheels of justice are seldom round, and greased in strange ways...
I can tell you that they don't do it in most European countries, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did it in a few places (like the UK).
With arbitrary reasons their apps get removed, sometimes surprisingly brazen feature copying by the store owner, and lack of humans or any transparency in the appeal process.
