Companies do things that hurt their competitors all of the time. Often, consumers are the beneficiaries (at least in the short term) -- as is the case when a new entrant into a market is able to provide a better or cheaper service, and supplants an older or less efficient competitor. There's nothing inherently wrong with this. Other times (like now, or when Google announced it was ending support for ActiveSync), the decision is a little more ambiguous. But in both cases, there's a potential cost for Google that's being avoided -- and that aligns nicely with competitive considerations. I don't think we want to live in a society where anyone can be legally compelled to provide a service at a loss to a small number of users.
The rules change, of course when we're close to a monopoly situation. But Google isn't at that point for either maps or mobile devices -- so at least legally, there's really no issue here.
I think that what people are really reacting to is that this is a decision which (at least superficially) is at odds with the way that Google markets themselves to us tech folks. And as such, it's a good reminder not to consume marketing messages without at least a few grains of salt.
I don't see it as at odds with how they market themselves. They position themselves as providing an Open, non-proprietary option as an alternative to monolithic and traditional closed solutions from Apple and Microsoft, and they are delivering on that in the form of Android.
The rules change, of course when we're close to a monopoly situation. But Google isn't at that point for either maps or mobile devices -- so at least legally, there's really no issue here.
I think that what people are really reacting to is that this is a decision which (at least superficially) is at odds with the way that Google markets themselves to us tech folks. And as such, it's a good reminder not to consume marketing messages without at least a few grains of salt.