You likely have commented that multiple times, since it seems like a copy/paste to a completely different discussion. It isn't relevant here.
Microsoft made the apps for Google, then when that failed released them themselves with no expectation of Google taking over/paying for support. So your point isn't at all relevant to what happened in the Windows Phone situation.
As I said right at the start of my post: Google is fully entitled to refuse to produce apps for Windows Phone. That isn't the problem here, Google effectively blocked their API on that specific platform and their strong market position strangled the platform to death.
You missed that they had Google apps, then MS threw out the platform and replaced it with something non-competitive and very confused about what an app was or could be.
The apps that MS made for third parties were rush jobs and poorly maintained over time, and because the Silverlight runtime was not up to the job, performed poorly. They did not well represent their respective brands. They were nowhere near the quality of Google Maps for WinCE circa 2009, to say nothing of how they stood against their contemporary equivalents on iOS and Android.
Would you really want a bad app, that cannot do what your real offerings do, out there representing you, with your name and logo?
> The apps that MS made for third parties were rush jobs and poorly maintained over time
The Google apps Microsoft produced worked extremely well right up until the day they got pulled due to legal threats. I'm not sure what this is a reference to.
> because the Silverlight runtime was not up to the job, performed poorly.
XNA ("Silverlight") was only one of the platforms Windows Phone supported. It also had support for Windows Phone App Studio and the Windows Runtime. The Windows Runtime never had poor performing characteristics and was the most popular platform after WP8's release.
> Would you really want a bad app, that cannot do what your real offerings do, out there representing you, with your name and logo?
No, but since that wasn't the reality I don't see the relevance of the question. It is largely a strawman situation where the apps were bad (they weren't), had bad performance (they didn't), and were developed using "Silverlight" (they weren't).
You say you post this information a lot on this site. It is unfortunately you didn't research before the first time you posted it.
Microsoft made the apps for Google, then when that failed released them themselves with no expectation of Google taking over/paying for support. So your point isn't at all relevant to what happened in the Windows Phone situation.
As I said right at the start of my post: Google is fully entitled to refuse to produce apps for Windows Phone. That isn't the problem here, Google effectively blocked their API on that specific platform and their strong market position strangled the platform to death.