That makes no sense at all. IE was bundled with the OS which was licensed for money, forced down the PC manufacturers' neck with anti competitive terms and conditions along with proprietary technology (ActiveX/VBScript) to further Microsoft's monopolistic grip on the PC market.
On the contrary Google is distributing an Open Source OS with well documented APIs (that RIM is using to run Android apps as-is), they aren't requiring any anti-competitive agreements/royalties from anyone to forbid them using alternative OS etc. They are betting on good-will and competence as far as I can see - that manufacturers can use it on its merits rather than being forced to do it. Of course in the process they are making money but it's win-win for everyone.
IE killed Netscape - that was anti competitive for some but having lived through Netscape 4.x I can assure you that Netscape's incompetence was also a big part of their failure.
On the contrary Google is distributing an Open Source OS with well documented APIs (that RIM is using to run Android apps as-is), they aren't requiring any anti-competitive agreements/royalties from anyone to forbid them using alternative OS etc. They are betting on good-will and competence as far as I can see - that manufacturers can use it on its merits rather than being forced to do it. Of course in the process they are making money but it's win-win for everyone.
IE killed Netscape - that was anti competitive for some but having lived through Netscape 4.x I can assure you that Netscape's incompetence was also a big part of their failure.