Promoting your own product above competitors' is ok unless you're big. Ok, I get it. But I don't agree with it.
If you're big but not a monopolist, and you do the exact same thing, then way less of a problem. Hence Apple could bundle Safari with iOS but Microsoft couldn't bundle IE with Windows XP in the exact same way.
You're also interpreting the word "big" perhaps too literally. In your example, Apple is not big in the sense I mean. Microsoft might be, but that doesn't mean I agree with the judgement against them.
If people like your product so much that 95% of the market uses it, I don't see the abuse.
... but human attention is.
Which is why the fine is not for 95% of the market using the product, but for abusing that position to unfairly disadvantage competitors.
> it's about using a monopoly position in one field to gain entry to another.
It's not about Google dominating the search market. It's about Google leveraging their dominant position on the search market to promote their comparison shopping service, which is a different product for different market.
Think of the competition laws as nerfing your ability to leverage domination of one market into immediate domination of other markets. Companies don't have natural rights, there are only the arbitrary rules of the market game, that are intended to promote general prosperity in the society.
Freedoms exist only to let companies thrive insofar as that then lets them sell goods that benefit the people. Once that stops, the freedoms stop.
I'm being slightly dry cut, but this is a good rule of thumb when looking at society. It's easy to forget about the bigger picture and think that companies have any type of inherent right to exist. They don't. They're here for us. Of course, theory vs practice, yada yada. but again: rule of thumb for regulations.
If anything, punishing a big company for its potentially big effect on markets values 1) markets above people and 2) competitors' ability to participate on the market above the people.
Banning integration or self-promotion could very well result in a worse product overall that serves people worse.
For example this is my view and the view of most EU citizens:
"punishing a big company for its potentially big effect on markets values 1) people above markets and 2) competitors' ability to participate on the market which is to the benefit of costumers (people)"
That seems completely backwards. Governments have only one purpose—to serve the people.
Companies have only one purpose—to serve its shareholders. Of course, purely pursuing this purpose can lead to perverse outcomes so we have regulation to keep it in check.
> Companies [don't] have any type of inherent right to exist
Huh? In so far as individuals have a right to engage in trade and commerce, and in so far as they have a right to engage in this in coordination with other individuals, companies do have a right to exist.
I hate to split hairs, but no, they don't. Companies are just an arbitrary legal entity.
If you would not have that kind of control (and fines when they break those rules) it would be virtually impossible to beat these kind of entities or they can use their weight to strong-arm them-self in a lot of markets. See what happened in the past with Microsoft.
You can self-promote whatever you want, as long as it's independent of others' promotions.