>they've successfully demonstrated that they both have too much power and don't give a shit about their end users.
This is the fundamental problem with Google, period.
This is the fundamental problem with Google, period.
On a tangential note, honest question to people here. If Microsoft was fined for bundling the Internet Explorer browser along with Windows in 1997, why is it that I can't remove Chrome from Android or Safari from iOS or Edge from Windows today? I'm largely stranger to US antitrust laws.
Still doesn't explain why Edge is bundled with Windows and why I can't uninstall it from my PC without going to the system files.
Microsoft didn't lose the antitrust case. It was overturned on appeal, remanded to a lower court to try again, and then the government settled out of court.
From the Wikipedia description of the settlement: "the DOJ did not require Microsoft to change any of its code nor prevent Microsoft from tying other software with Windows in the future".
What's more "Microsoft’s obligations under the settlement, as originally drafted, expired on November 12, 2007."
Given all of that why wouldn't Edge be bundled?
Theoretically, anticipating an antitrust case might lead you to be equally cautious, in roughly the same way, as having recently gotten an antitrust case.
Though things that "demonstrated that they ... have too much power" sound like some of the worst things you could do if you were anticipating an antitrust case.
Google and other big IT corpos seem to be operating under the assumption that government action is harmless. At most they get a moderate fine, which they can delay in courts for years, and then keep operating with minor alterations.
This won't change until there is actual legislation or they are threatened with being broken.
Having a browser engine in an OS makes sense from a third party developer point of view - if I want my app to run on all windows/Mac/iOS/android/whatever systems without bundling WebKit, having a browser libs guaranteed to be on $target is really helpful.
Android/iOS is a different beast, as they both have decent shares of the market; if you don't like Safari being bundled with iOS you can always buy an Android phone. That seems to be the reasoning behind it anyway.
Mind you, Windows has a smaller market share of the personal computing market today, compared to when the anti-trust cases were settled. I suspect that with Apple's currently higher market share and the fact that browsers are available on phones, pads and other devices, those settlements would have ended up differently.
Create a competitor. Barriers to entry? Figure out how to dismantle or deal with those barriers. Too lazy or don't know/understand how and just want legislation, control, towards tyrannical systems - then yeah, lobby your government to stifle innovation; most governments already stifle innovation - patents arguably being the largest problem here, in bed with the legal-lawyer industrial complex.
This learned helplessness that society feels trapped in really is a problem; thanks to Eric Weinstein for adding that lens as a tool to understand current conversations through as well.
Use DuckDuckGo search or other, gift them money so they can improve their search - or fund another startup who's working on the problem etc. Plenty of options.
Edit to add: I see at least 2 people have continued to choose the lazy option.
I’m not sure that’s a strategy open to many people. Using laws created by democratic processes to reduce power of a Single corp seems more viable.
Winning an election requires the support of exceptional people.
Don't like End of Universe? Create your own big bang.
What do you mean it's impossible? Stop this learned helplessness.