There is a big difference between actively opposing competition and having a dominant position. There is nothing wrong with getting such a position, because the market loves to use your products. Then abuse that position to keep out the competition? it’s a problem.

You cited Windows Phone, which is a great example of how Google actively opposes these phones. Google services simply do not work on those phones. Not because the browser couldn’t do it, but because Google sabotaged the sites as soon as they discovered it was a Windows phone.

MS also wanted certain apps, such as the YouTube app. Google did not want to develop it and after MS came up with an alternative, Google banned MS from offering it and also did not want to work with MS to make the application possible.

Google was afraid of MS. A company with a lot of capital behind them could miss them like a toothache in the smartphone market. And since Google has some of the most important apps and services that people want to use on their phones, pushing the platform through to the end was easy.

Did MS miss the lead? absolute. They also contributed to the accelerating end of the platform. But Google’s active opposition, and the abuse of power from the Google site, certainly did not help.

But that’s not even what will come up as a major pain point in this study. The fact that Google is taking advantage of their site to order the installation of so many apps and the fact that smartphone makers have to buy a whole package of services from Google in bulk because they want to be able to offer the App Store to customers is what’s going to kill them here. Customers want the App Store and Google is taking advantage of customers’ willingness to pay immediately with manufacturers, knowing that these manufacturers have no other choice, because if Samsung no longer provides Google apps tomorrow, sales in their phones.