This reasoning seems weird to me, and your examples aren't helping things. Like, sending off an OS in 2020 that had no browser or media player would obviously be extremely silly, and would present a terrible user experience for people.
I just can't see including a browser in an OS as some evil practice. It just seems like obvious good sense.
> adding new features to it that are in direction competition with other products is anti-competitive behaviour.
Probably any new feature you could think to add to Office exists somewhere on the internet already, in some form. Is MS just not allowed to add new things now?
Or what if MS manages to add something first, then an upstart competitor appears right after? Does it not count as anti-competitive then?
I'm guessing you aren't European? Windows shipped (still does? I use Linux now) a piece of software that let you pick what browser you wanted. It was a very simple thing, just click and download the browser you prefer. I don't see how, after installing your operating system where you click through a bunch of dialogues already, clicking through one more isn't a 2020 experience, especially when the alternative is to open IE to download Firefox or Chrome.
I don't actually remember that many dialogues the last time I installed windows. It would be pretty obnoxious if there was a dialogue for every bundled program or feature that nominally competes with others: browser, media player, text editor, shell, drawing app, firewall, anti-malware, app store, etc. There's probably a least a couple dozen programs in that category.
It's not really clear to me why a few of these application types (like browser and media player) have been singled out in the past, but others are given a pass.
As long as third party programs can be treated the same as first party ones once installed (e.g. default program preferences) I don't really see bundling as inherently anti-competitive.
I would need to double check, but I don't think Android even comes with a non "service" Video Player/Photo Viewer/Music Player. Its Google Photos/Youtube(Music).
I just can't see including a browser in an OS as some evil practice. It just seems like obvious good sense.
> adding new features to it that are in direction competition with other products is anti-competitive behaviour.
Probably any new feature you could think to add to Office exists somewhere on the internet already, in some form. Is MS just not allowed to add new things now?
Or what if MS manages to add something first, then an upstart competitor appears right after? Does it not count as anti-competitive then?