&gt; The point of the article is that Samsung is free to load up its phones with dozens of apps that compete directly with Google.<p>OEMs must give the Google apps very prominent placement, including a Google search bar on the home screen, and in many cases set them as the default. But this isn&#x27;t at the heart of the objection. The strongest point is that Google forbids its licensees from shipping alternative versions of Android. This means that Samsung cannot offer consumers a choice between (say) GoogleAndroid and Cyanogen.<p>&gt; Samsung can change the default search engine to Bing<p>Google requires OEMs to set Google as the default search engine, according to the EU complaint. I don&#x27;t know if that&#x27;s true; I speculate it&#x27;s not true for Samsung (which has negotiating leverage) but is true for smaller OEMs.<p>&gt; Seems like a much more competitive market than the Apple or Microsoft mobile ecosystems.<p>No way. A true competitive market would be a bunch of Apple-like firms, independently building whatever products they want. Instead we have all but a handful of OEMs beholden to Google, under contracts which oblige them to do things Google&#x27;s way, and no other way (&quot;anti-fragmentation&quot;).<p>The article makes a case that consumers aren&#x27;t being harmed by this, because OEMs make terrible software. This may be true. But it&#x27;s still anti-competitive.