> It works for Amazon and the various Chinese clones.

It didn't seem to work so well for Amazon from what I could tell. They use AOSP on their devices, yes, but they aren't what I'd call competitive in the smartphone market.

The Chinese ones are inapplicable because Google can't (yet) do business in China. If licensing GApps isn't an option in a given market, then everyone is on an even footing regarding its use.

> Alternatively: why are you mad at Google and not Apple?

I'm not fond of Apple and their walled garden, but I don't pretend to know how you could force them to open things up without being overly heavy handed. That being said, I also don't think they're relevant to this case because there's very clearly competition to them - there are (obviously) very feasible alternatives to buying an iPhone as evidenced by the sales figures.

So far you've managed to list three examples as supposed counterpoints, but I don't think any of them are relevant with respect to Google abusing their market position to force the hands of others. On the whole, I don't know of any major vendor of Android devices that does business primarily in the west (EU, US, CA, AUS, ...) and doesn't choose to license GApps. I'd tend to view the complete lack of meaningful GApps competitors in such a large market as clear evidence that it's simply not feasible to compete with them under the dichotomy they force on you.

> You're saying that Google needs to be forced to sell the app suite to everyone on even terms, basically. That's not the way business works. There's no "fairness" requirement in contract law, and if you think hard about it you don't really want there to be one.

Your statement about fairness (general case) doesn't follow from your statement about Google (specific case). In general, yes, I am well aware that there is no requirement of fairness in the general case; you seem to be making an awful lot of assumptions about what I know and think. Google is very clearly not the general case, and I do think that they need to be forced to license the app suite to everyone on non-abusive terms at minimum. Apparently the EC agrees with me.

> The finding by the EC was based on antitrust arguments, which have nothing to do with fairness and are intended to protect consumers and the market from exploitative monopolies.

You keep bringing up fairness as though in response to me. I never said anything about fairness.

> But your sarcasm doesn't really argue well here.

On the contrary, I think it does. My sarcasm was in direct response to your earlier statements such as:

* "This is spun terminology."

* "So spinning this as "Google says you can't use AOSP" is just wrong."

* "But none of that has anything to do with being able to use Android."

These all seem comically out of touch to me. Google very much does say that you can't use AOSP so long as you wish to use GApps. As far as I can tell, this is roughly equivalent to saying that you can't use AOSP if you wish to be a reasonably competitive supplier of Android based devices in the west. I see no reason to sugarcoat those terms as anything other than Google very directly saying that smartphone manufacturers can't use AOSP.