I may have failed to get my point across.
> This isn't anti-competitive behavior in the common understanding of it, and certainly not in the legal sense
That's the same thing I'm saying, that advertising is not anti-competitive. You brought up the NFL example, and I replied by saying that's a bad example because it's just advertising, and advertising is not anti-competitive behavior.
> As for the Samsung example, I completely disagree. If it was a situation like that Microsoft would have paid enough money to be an exclusive provider. You can't count that $400 million as lost without counting how much Microsoft paid them for the exclusivity. If the NFL was just using a bunch of different products then the value of the advertising to Microsoft is reduced, and so they would pay less for it or not participate at all, which they have every right to do.
There I think you may have misread/misinterpreted the last sentence in my comment. I was saying that Microsoft forcing the NFL to use Surface tablets by threatening to cut off their access to Windows/Office if they don't is anti-competitive, because it means Microsoft does not have to get into a bidding war with the competition (like Samsung), and at the same time it means Samsung was unfairly robbed of a business opportunity by a competitor.
I never said that the actual Surface deal Microsoft struck with the NFL (in real life, not in analogy land) was anti-competitive.
Also, I don't see what the Roku/Netflix button thing has to do with this thread, because the OP is about Google threatening to pull Youtube TV from Roku unless Roku gives them preferential treatment in their software (among other demands).