In an anti-trust sort of way. A $2-$3 mark up is essentially inconsequential and could be due to the store cost or infrastructure, but if it were $9.99 for Android and $1,000.00 for iOS then there would be a pretty good case that Google isn't engaging in "fair competition."
Just something companies should watch out for. Even if campaign finance considers money to be speech and a founder or company might want to make a bold statement, doesn't mean that there aren't repercussions for acting unfairly toward competition.
What's the difference between charging a super high amount versus simply not shipping for that platform? Should Google be forced to develop apps using Apple's tools for Apple devices? For Microsoft? Blackberry?
I don't know, what do you think? What would happen if Google only ever released software for Android? Or if Google didn't allow anyone else to develop software for their devices? These are opposite examples, but there are more cases on that side.
I'm a lawyer (No I'm not), so I know that under competition law it's illegal for a company to engage in abusive behavior. Fixing prices in that way seems unfair.
And anyway I'm not concerned about the particular pricing because I won't pay for this product for either platform.
The current anti trust laws as written mean Google could be broken up if they only release a YouTube player for Android or even limit a single feature to only Android. Not that we actually enforce the law in the U.S. when dealing with powerful companies.
Just something companies should watch out for. Even if campaign finance considers money to be speech and a founder or company might want to make a bold statement, doesn't mean that there aren't repercussions for acting unfairly toward competition.