I disagreed with the Microsoft charges back then, and I disagree with the case against Google now. I hate both of them and I think they use monopolistic tactics, but making their own search engine or browser the default in their OS isn’t monopolistic, especially since you can easily change it.
The tactics that should be fought against are things like when Google used its size and money to offer free unlimited cloud photo storage. That put several cloud services out of business because they couldn’t compete with “free unlimited” storage. Then, when all the competition was gone, Google started charging for their service which was no longer unlimited.
When someone tries to compete with Google, Google either uses their power to put them out of business or buys them. That is totally monopolistic and what the government should be defending against.
MS did exactly what you describe Google doing with free unlimited storage.
In the 90s, it absolutely was not easy to change your browser because operating systems didn’t come with browsers. You had to go to a physical store, buy a box of software, and go home and install it. Sure you could find an OSS browser if you knew how to browse the net via command line, but your average newcomer to the net in the mid 90s had no clue how to do so. For the most part, browsers existed as a purchase.
But then MS decided to bundle their browser in for free with the OS, which at the time was the most widely used OS by far, and it completely eviscerated the market. Imagine you’re an average user and you now have IE as part of your new Windows 95 install. What impetus do you have to go out and spend $60 on another browser?
MS took their existing market dominance and used it to completely destroy the competition in the browser space. And it took decades to break that stranglehold.
The shitty part tho is that we traded one monopolist for another. Now that Google is dominating the browser world, they’re essentially controlling the shape of the web and how we use it
