I think the criticism here is hypocrisy. Google has a reputation of being extremely honest, open, fair, what-have-you. This reputation is exemplified by their o

I think the criticism here is hypocrisy. Google has a reputation of being extremely honest, open, fair, what-have-you. This reputation is exemplified by their offering a an initial choice in other markets. But, as this example illustrates, in the markets where it actually matters, they take that initial choice away. This is not really hard to understand. Google adores the reputation they have for somehow being above the fray and simply being the best. They cultivate this image. But over and over it's revealed that they are a normal company, who does things such as "delayed open source" to keep partners in line, purposely introducing systematic flaws in their Web search API, and of course the foregoing "special circumstances", all of which are sneaky ways to have the appearance of the image they want, while keeping their competitive advantage. I don't begrudge them these decisions, but all the Google fawning does get a little hard to take, as if they have some sort of moral superiority. The facts say otherwise. They are not altruistic. They do not make decisions that might hurt themselves in order to give others an equal chance. Google has replaced Apple is the PR machine extraordinaire in the modern corporate world.