[wfjackson]

>I never saw Chrome as the way for Google to ascertain that the general public can have unfettered access to Google properties, I saw - and see - Chrome as a way to extend the Google eco-system onto the end users device, and to gain access to URLs that otherwise would remain hidden from Google to reduce the 'dark web' as seen through Google as well as a way to track users on pages that don't have Google Analytics installed. When technically speaking it really shouldn't matter what browser the users uses, as long as it is standards compliant it should simply work.

Agreed, things like Chrome and Android appear to be moats against a new search engine not being able to compete on a level playing field. For example, on Android, in order to get access to the Play Store and other Google APIs, OEMs are forced to ship only Google as the default search provider.

From http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/02/new-android-oem-licen...

>The agreement is basically a laundry list of "dos and don'ts" for licensing Google apps. The terms at the time covered the "Set-up Wizard, Google Phone-top Search, Gmail, Google Calendar, Google Talk, YouTube, Google Maps for Mobile, Google Street View, Contact Sync, Android Market Client (not products downloaded from Android Market

>The most important clause states that "Devices may only be distributed if all Google Applications... are pre-installed on the Device." Google apps are an all-or-nothing affair. If you want Google Maps or the Play Store, you must also take things like Google+ and Google's network location provider

>Google's Network Location Provider must not only be included, but set as the default network location provider; this is no doubt the clause that triggered a lawsuit from rival location company Skyhook.