Your point is more than fair, but at this point, does anyone not know the deal with Apple (and Google and Microsoft for that matter?) All these companies are looking out for #1. If it becomes in their interests to screw you, look out. Apple: examples too numerous to mention. Microsoft: the whole world by delaying the internet for 6-10 years by killing off all alternate browsers then stopping any development. Everyone who purchased a computer basically ever by forcing manufacturers to always buy their OS no matter what they sold on the computer. Google: skyhook, google+, dropbox, etc.
Google may create a competitor but will not try to prevent you from doing your own thing. That is really the most you can hope for. You cannot honestly expect another company to not enter your business because you thought of it first (except if you have a patent of course).
But Google will not use any of its substantial infrastructure to prevent you from doing your own business. They will still list you in the search results, offer your software in the android store, allow you to buy ads, etc. This is very different from what is happening here.
One of the examples I gave, Skyhook, so clearly contradicts your entire post that I have to assume you're intentionally lying. Because that was exactly google preventing someone from executing their business essentially via blackmail. See also their negotiations with Yelp / scraping their results. Oh, and twitter results.
None of these are examples of Google shutting someone out of their channels. All of these companies can be found on google search and can offer apps on the android marketplace. And I am sure they can also advertise on adsense if they wanted to.
Twitter wanted Google to pay them hundreds of millions of dollars for the right to search tweets. Google was paying that money, but then Twitter wanted to increase the fee and Google refused. But again, if they wanted to have their tweets indexed by google on the same terms as everyone else (i.e., for free) they could.
Google told Motorola if they used Skyhook then their devices wouldn't be android compatible. [1] And from emails:
one email quotes an Android manager saying it was obvious to
phone manufacturers that "we are using compatibility as a club
to make them do things we want." [1]
I'm sure you can come up with some way this wasn't Google shutting someone out of their channels... but please. Because everyone involved believes that was the case:
Motorola flat-out told Skyhook that Android devices are "approved
essentially at Google's discretion," and that Moto couldn't afford
to risk its relationship with Google. Motorola also told Skyhook that
its carrier agreements require Google's apps be preloaded on its
phones, so Google's compatibility decision was doubly important --
if Motorola shipped software that didn't have Google's blessing (and
apps), it would immediately violate its contracts with carriers. [2]
So Motorola can't use Skyhook's software because google used their control over Motorola's ability to include other google apps to screw Skyhook. Now, the lawsuit will decide whether this was legal, but it sure as hell was "Google shutting someone out of their channels."
There's a difference between "We as a handset-manufacturer can't enter into a business relationship where we preload this on our phones, because we've got an extant business relationship with Google which would be threatened" and "users are not permitted to install this from the app store ever at all because we're locking them out to steal their business."
The story is a little bit more complex than that and Skyhook don't come out of it as well as it appears in your quote. I'm afraid I don't have any sources for you immediately as it was a while ago.
1. Skyhook didn't just want their stuff preinstalled, they wanted Google Maps taken out.
2. Google felt that the way Skyhook reported their location data (mixing WiFi/cell tower calculations and GPS data, IIRC) would have polluted their location database if they had tried to use it (the way they use the data gathered via Google Maps). Since getting that data is one of their few direct, tangible benefits from releasing Google Apps on an Android phone, it isn't terribly surprising that they'd be protective of it.
That's not true at all. Our contract just stated that Skyhook was the sole location provider for all apps. There was no restriction on whether they could ship Google Maps. The contract also said Motorola couldn't send our location data back to Google which they would use to build a competitive system on our back.
Google used their might to convince companies that they would be better off not using Shyhook. It is a hardball tactic, but it isn't comparable to Apple just yanking an app. Motorola could have told Google to eff off and used Shyhook. But as Motorola said, they can't afford to risk their relationship with Google. Subtle but important distinction.
Hopefully very few. I wrote that at the end of 2004, and it seems simpler to link to it than to repeat the same old, same old arguments all over again.
Yes! Sharecropping in the Orchard:
http://weblog.raganwald.com/2004/11/sharecropping-in-orchard...