On the face of things, the European Commission (EC) has done well to slap a $5 billion on Google for what it termed as abuse of dominance by putting \u201cillegal restrictions on Android device manufacturers and mobile network operators\u201d. The three main charges leveled by EC are that Google forced Android device manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and Chrome as a pre-condition for licensing them its Play Store, that it paid large manufacturers to exclusively pre-install the Google Search app on their devices (presumably this has to be non-Android phones) and that it prevented manufacturers who wanted to pre-install Google apps from using any version of Android not approved of by Google (Android forks, in jargon). Since abuse of dominance is an integral part of the remit of any competition, levying a fine seems the most obvious course. Yet, it has to be recognised that competition issues are hardly as black and white anymore, and it is difficult to immediately see how consumer interests\u2014also at the heart of competition abuse\u2014have been adversely affected. Indeed, since Google\u2019s services become better as more and more people use its products, trying to break that up\u2014as EC is trying to do\u2014is not intuitively pro-consumer; when a Gmail or a Map is available free, it is, in any case, more difficult to argue that consumers would be better served if the phones they use didn\u2019t have these apps pre-installed. Also, as Google CEO Sundar Pichai argues, Google\u2019s development of Android has resulted in there being 1,300 brands powered by Android, 24,000 devices at every price point\u2014and each can run the same applications\u2014and more than a million apps on Play Store. This, Pichai asserts, is due to the rules Google has put in place to ensure technical compatibility, and the billions of dollars it spent to develop Android. Surely the resulting consumer welfare from this\u2014phones cost more in the pre-Android era and had less features\u2014has to be balanced against the potential loss due to the restrictions EC talks of? EC says the pre-installation causes a \u2018status quo bias\u2019 and if they are not addressed, the fines will go up to 5% of Google\u2019s global turnover. By way of evidence, EC says 95% of all searches on Android devices (which have Search and Chrome pre-installed) are made via Google Search as compared to 75% of all searches on Microsoft mobile devices taking place using Bing (which is pre-installed on Microsoft devices). Google\u2019s reply to this, however, is also quite convincing, that typical Android users install about 50 apps themselves and that browsers like Opera Mini, Firefox and UC Browser were downloaded more than 600 million times last year. This may be a small proportion of those using the Chrome browser, but it is important to ask whether Microsoft\u2019s Internet Explorer died because of US anti-trust action or whether this was due to browsers like Chrome being better or, if pre-installation was so important, why is Google\u2019s Allo struggling against a WhatsApp; in other words, are competition authorities guilty of ignoring the impact of technological advances? It is not clear if Google will stop the practices EC has highlighted, but if Chrome has a 60% market share in browsers, and Search around 90% in all search engines\u2014according to The Verge\u2014it is not entirely clear how much the EC\u2019s unbundling proposal will change things if users give default status to the apps they prefer using. Consumers will have an additional problem if, as Pichai hints, the EC move results in Google charging for Android technology or if, as he says, this sends a \u201csignal in favor of proprietary systems over open platforms\u201d.