How does "competes with existing functionality" not wake up the antitrust regulators? Wasn't the entire IE shipping with Windows situation based on a competitive functionality?
> antitrust |ˌantēˈtrəst; ˌantī-|
> adjective [ attrib. ]
> of or relating to legislation preventing or controlling trusts or other monopolies, with the intention of promoting competition in business.
In pretty much every thread about Apple on this site, you will be reminded that Android enjoys amazing sales.
> Wasn't the entire IE shipping with Windows situation based on a competitive functionality?
Microsoft was found to be a de-facto monopoly on the desktop.
And in the same threads and on Apple blogs like Gruber's and Siegler, you're constantly reminded how it doesn't matter because Apple takes ~75% of the profits, and statistics on how apps are more profitable on iOS because Apple users are the premium users willing to pay and how many Android users are too cheap to buy apps. So if you're an app maker looking to make money, iOS is pretty much close to a monopoly if you're trying to make money.
So far as I know, Nokia was a leader in non/pre-iOS/Android app markets. For some reason I think their results weren't competitive with iOS or even Android...
Everyone could and many did install Netscape, IE 3+ was just better after Netscape stagnated at version 4 for years because of a rewrite. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html
Microsoft shipped their browser default since an OS without a browser did not make sense. The user was completely free to install any other competing browsers without needing to jailbreak the device.
If Microsoft actually stopped Netscape from running, could you imagine the backlash?
Which is not relevant, I fear. Action was taken against microsoft because they were a monopoly and used their monopoly position both to hinder potential competition and muscle their way into new markets.