Based on what I see around me, people just use the first browser they see. Until someone with technical know-how comes along, people will use Edge on Windows (and usually complain about how the internet is acting up, but that's another story).

The same goes for Samsung and its own browser, simply called "Internet": people often have heard of Google Chrome but won't go looking if there's a working "internet button" right in front of them. Other vendors use the same trick.

Personally, I would think this is a good thing as it takes away some of the monopoly Google has, if Samsung etc. would just give their browsers regular updates through the Play Store/their own app store (latest version I can find on the Play Store still uses Chrome 59).

There is no technical reason to install the Google app or to install Chrome. Vendors can easily install their own WebKit/Blink engines for all the WebView/technical requirements (as seen by alternative ROMs) and the Google app can be deleted without affecting the other Play Services.

I think this is a ploy to prevent companies like Microsoft from coming with their own ROMs that focuses on Microsoft applications (Cortana, Bing, Edge mobile, Outlook, Microsoft Office etc., MS have a near complete stack of applications for Android) without offering any pre-installed competition like Google does.

> People would install Chrome anyway

Which only serves as strengthening Chrome's position (Chrome being a I/O vector for Google's ad market).

> and they already dominate search, so why bother.

Which obliterates any chance of a remotely widespread alternative emerging. The homescreen search bar is technically a widget like any other yet it is the only one that cannot even be removed from any stock launcher!

Imagine a manufacturer whose part of its proposition (whether through deals or genuine customer interest) is for whatever reason to sell a phone that comes loaded up with Firefox (or Opera) and has Bing (or DuckDuckGo, or Qwant) as a search widget. This is currently impossible and the decision aims to change that. The fact that Google uses its Android - because there is no viable alternative platform - and Play Store - because without the apps the platform is useless to the general public - dominance in the phone market to strong-arm manufacturers into preloading extensions of its search and ad market is a huge issue, turning the "Google experience" on Android into an all-or-nothing proposition.

But there is a related yet more subtle issue that isn't addressed: log into the Play Store, and you're helpfully logged into all other Google services such as Gmail, Chrome, Calendar, Photos... The only thing you can subsequently prevent is automatic syncing, but cannot disable each one of those services at all (unless you disable the whole app). So basically you log in to download whatever app on the Play Store and you turn on a huge firehose aimed at Google's datacenters. As an Android user the feeling I have of the "Google experience" is one of coercion, not freedom.

BTW your iTunes/Apple Music example is interesting, although it could be developed further to better match the situation.

>Imagine that Apple forced telcos to block Spotify, to force users to iTunes, and if they didn't then no iPhones on that carriers network.

Doesn't Apple already do this with the App Store? You can't buy an iPhone with Spotify pre-installed and Apple Music can leverage its position of not having to give another company a 30% cut to undercut spotify's prices.

But Apple does pre-install iTunes/Apple Music, and make money when users use the default music app rather than downloading alternatives. You gotta pay for the OS somehow, but people aren't willing to pay for OSes. So instead, Apple makes money through the bundled hardware (to use iOS, you must buy an iPhone) and Google through the bundled software (if you want to use some Google apps like the Play Store, you must also use other Google apps like Chrome and Search).

This isnt true though. Samsung ships it's own apps as the defaults on it's devices as one example.

> Imagine that Apple forced telcos to block Spotify. But they do. Telcos are not allowed to pre-install Spotify on iPhones, are they? iTunes on the other hand is pre-installed along with Safari, Apple Maps and Apple Podcast.

Of course once you have the device you can do whatever you ... can. Similarly once you have your Android phone you can install an alternative browser.

In fact I have had Samsung phones with two app stores and two browsers. Guess which one was was I unable to delete without rooting the phone first?

I am not a fan of whataboutism, but in this case it just seems unfair that the creator of a (more) open ecosystem is taking all the beating.

Note: I actually hate the search widget as well as the assistant, but there are hundreds of alternative home screen apps.

Name an industry that doesn't use their position in one market to gain influence in another.

Fine them for the anticompetitive practices, then - not success...

So to be clear,

IF Google had manufactured all of the phones themselves, and had never open sourced Android, then they could have kept Chrome and Search on Android, and there would have been no problem, right?

But because Google let other people manufacture Androids, and because Google open sourced Android, now it's a problem?

The logic of this is just baffling to me.

I'm asking for help understanding. And you know that. ಠ_ಠ