Google contract prevented Motorola from setting Perplexity as default assistant

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Nature of the Motorola–Perplexity–Google issue

  • Contract between Google and Lenovo/Motorola allows Perplexity to be preinstalled but forbids setting it as the default assistant.
  • Several commenters call the original headline misleading: Google didn’t “ban” Perplexity from devices, it enforced a contract Motorola chose to sign.
  • Others argue the updated title (focusing on “default assistant”) is more accurate but still undersells the broader antitrust context.

Is this anti-competitive behavior?

  • One side: Motorola/Lenovo voluntarily signed; if they want Google Play and other Google apps, they must accept Google as default assistant. This is framed as normal bundling and business negotiation.
  • Other side: With Google’s dominance in Android services and app distribution, OEMs have “no real choice.” The contract is seen as coercive and part of a pattern that should be illegal under antitrust, similar to 90s Microsoft tying IE to Windows.
  • It’s argued that blocking competitors from being default (rather than just bundling your own app) is the key anti-competitive step.

Android “open source” vs Google control

  • Repeated claims that Android being “open source” is largely nominal:
    • AOSP is incomplete and less useful without proprietary Google components.
    • Google Play Services, Play Store, Maps, notifications, and DRM are closed and essential for most apps.
    • Anti-fragmentation / certification agreements reportedly bar OEMs from shipping non‑Google Android forks if they want Play on any of their devices.
  • Defenders respond that:
    • AOSP is still available and forkable; Google doesn’t owe OEMs free services.
    • Other vendors (Apple, Microsoft) offer far less openness and sideloading.

Comparisons to Apple, Microsoft, and duopoly concerns

  • Some argue Google is still a “better actor” than Apple (more sideloading, changeable defaults), and is punished more despite being relatively more open.
  • Counterargument: Google marketed Android as open, then used its power and proprietary layers to recreate Apple-like control, just less honestly.
  • Several draw a direct line to Microsoft’s past antitrust cases; others note both Apple and Google now function as a mobile duopoly/duopoly-like “cartel.”

Consumer impact, defaults, and bloatware

  • One group welcomes fewer OEM assistants and preinstalled junk; they see Google’s restrictions as inadvertently reducing crapware.
  • Others point out users still get extensive Google “bloatware,” and that the real problem is preventing OEMs from preferring their own or third-party options.
  • Discussion touches on how hard it is to ship a viable non‑Google Android (Huawei, Amazon), due to lack of Play Services, banking apps, notifications, and DRM – reinforcing Google’s practical lock-in.

AI assistants and future walled gardens

  • Some see Perplexity’s attempt to become default on phones as the opening skirmish in a future AI-assistant walled-garden battle, analogous to search/browser defaults.
  • Concern that the AI assistant layer will be carved up by a few incumbents using the same default-and-bundling tactics already seen in search and mobile.