You buy Microsoft Windows you get Microsoft IE - kinda makes sense. I don't know how else to describe this. It is the exact same thing! Using the platform to push another to the detriment of competitors in a space that the platform provider also competes.You buy an apple device you get apple software - kinda makes sense. That is why Grandma can actually do a video call with the grandkids. You can choose to do otherwise jailbreak for example but it then doesn't play with apple stuff on everyone elses phone. You are effectively saying that you want an to change a closed system to an open system. It exists - it's perfectly viable and available Android. This isn't 1990's MS where MS literally ran every mainstream PC device.
And yes - if it is a closed system, where the platform provider is abusing its power to the detriment of competition - yes - I want an open system. That's the whole point of antitrust law. It is based on the principles of open competitive markets making things better for and protecting consumers. "Benevolent overlord" isn't acceptable in free market.
So if you flip this around, say MS now says - "i want in on this benevolent overlord thing" and locks down windows to only installable UWP apps through Windows so they can extract their 30% tax too. You would argue say - cool, you have options. Go play on linux or MacOS right? They have more market share now vs 1990s so it is cool.
My guess that is not the answer you would say. Because it HURTS the consumer and hurts competition. But MS earned it. They made the platform and there are alternatives now. </s>
Soviet Russia bread line is so great! I dont have to think to get my bread.</s> And it is cool right? you have other options. Pick up the telephone and make a call. It boggles my mind when people argue against consumer choice.Choice is great - until there are so many choices it's a pain to get things to work. You have zoom, I have teams, they have skype, grandma has Magic Jack, Aunt Mary has Google Voice - yeah works perfect right?