I think they're making a distinction between 'competition' and 'anti-competitive behavior'.
And they are right about that. Microsoft has been repeatedly convicted for this behaviour (Windows Desktop -> Internet Explorer, and Windows Desktop -> Windows Media Player). Trying to argue otherwise would, IMNSHO, be silly. The only valid question remains, does Slack's offering itself (corporate IM) fall under the office productivity umbrella or not?
[0] and no, you do not have to own 100% of the market before being considered a monopoly
I don't think there's a comparable concern here. Teams won't open incidentally in the course of making a Powerpoint; there's no way for me to end up using it without an affirmative decision that it's the right messaging tool for me.
Slack probably have a pretty good case, but it's gonna take years so hopefully they have a plan for dealing with this in the interim.
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?
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.
A shame really, it was probably a better installation experience for alternative browsers than having to use IE!
The AOSP ones are just barely maintained.
MS has had Lync and Skype for the longest time. And MSN messenger goes back to the 90s.
In fact, Microsoft has had chat apps as part of their suite since before the company that eventually released Slack even existed.
Even the selling separately argument seems absurd. How is this any different than adding another Office SKU?