I'm familiar with the famous IE "bundling" thing that the case revolved around. Microsoft gave away IE for free. How this was supposedly different from Microsoft giving away a long list of other tools, like a text editor, escapes me.
As for me, I started with Netscape (free). I switched to IE (free) because IE crashed less often. I eventually switched to Chrome (free) because IE hung accessing github. Every operating system I have (OSX, Linux, FreeBSD, Windows) comes with a bundled browser. My phone comes with one. My Kindle comes with one. Most of the software I use daily is free.
There was no evidence of monopoly pricing. The very fact that IE was given away was de facto proof they did not have a monopoly. The case never made any sense.
Absolutely spot on. How an average user was expected to download an "alternative browser" without having a browser pre-installed was beyond me. The whole "browser choice" prompt was a farce.
This is before we get into the part about removing Windows Media Player from some EU releases...
I still have IE "installed" on my computer. I never use it, for reasons stated. Who cares if it is installed? I don't. I did use it to download Chrome, though :-)
Window 10 is now finding excuses to open itself to tell me about travel spots whenever I open the computer. Again and again there's a new bit of Microsoftmalware for me to disable.
Don't trust me for these details, but IIRC it wasn't just the free pricing. I recall OEMs only getting the best most competitive pricing if they didn't bundle a competing browser. Microsoft ensured the DLLs used by their browser were preloaded at boot time regardless of whether the user wanted the browser or not. Microsoft did not let a user uninstall the browser (so even if a competing browser did preload at boot time it cause the overall boot time to take longer, a penalty never avoidable with MS's browser since it was always installed to preload at boot b/c it was not uninstallable). Microsoft making their help system dependent on their browser. Microsoft forged videos in front of the court (!) trying to obscure these and other differences that went to the heart of whether the browser was part of the OS or an additional piece of software. Microsoft initially charged for IE in certain cases IIRC but later gave it away for free with email documents from execs discussing doing so "to cut off Netscape's air supply", clear evidence of attempting to maintain their monopoly or extend it into adjacent markets. Which is illegal and why they were convicted.
Sorry, the whole thing was a crock. Why shouldn't Microsoft make it part of their OS? And events have proved me right - everybody bundles in a free browser as part of their OS, and people still use alternatives on Windows. Still, all free.
That whole "air supply" thing was laughable. People competing with others always talk about "killing", "nuking", "blowing away", "crushing", etc., their competitors. This goes on in football games, ice skating, and business. Nobody means it literally. It isn't evidence of a crime.
Netscape would have fared better if their browser didn't crash a dozen times an hour. That was their fault, not Microsoft's.
Oh, and I could buy a Linux computer with one click from Amazon at the time. Anybody could buy parts, assemble them, and go into business selling Linux computers, complete with a full suite of free bundled software. There was nothing MS did or could have done to stop it.
As for me, I started with Netscape (free). I switched to IE (free) because IE crashed less often. I eventually switched to Chrome (free) because IE hung accessing github. Every operating system I have (OSX, Linux, FreeBSD, Windows) comes with a bundled browser. My phone comes with one. My Kindle comes with one. Most of the software I use daily is free.
There was no evidence of monopoly pricing. The very fact that IE was given away was de facto proof they did not have a monopoly. The case never made any sense.