Re: A question
It wasn't web browsing - it was "web" rendering. Actually, the IE rendering engine is used in several part of the Windows GUI. Thereby, could an OS have its default HTML rendering engine and HTTP protocol support or not? Could a web browser use that engine or not?
But the real problem was not really IE preinstalled - although giving it away for free killed many competitors, but, again, free email services and web mails didn't kill many competitors as well?
It was how MS was using it to twist the standards to drive them to its own direction and advantage (not different from what Google is doing now, see HTTP/2). Just like it attempted to twist Java - and lost there too.
Same for APIs, Office was then able to modify the OS and add new features that could kept hidden for a while, giving MS an unfair advantage (but in iOS there are several APIs only Apple apps can call, but that's OK, it's "for security"...). But believe me, WordPerfect developers had far bigger issues in Windows programming than "hidden" APIs. For example, it looked they never tested on NT4 (I was using it...).
In fact believe the biggest outcome of the EU rule was not the "browser choice" - it was the publishing of "all" interoperability specs. Just, because it's something that matters moslty to developers only, it never made the headlines.
OS/2 was another very bad managed project - did IBM really believed it could rely on its ability to run Win 3.1 applications for ever?? It bought Lotus, and instead of delivering SmartSuite for OS/2 quickly, spent time in releasing the Windows 3.1 version first, riddled with bugs. Given how slow IBM moved, and how big was an OS/2 service pack (and not everybody had Internet then, it came in a pack of several floppies you had to order explicitly - yes, I used OS/2 3.0 from 1994 to 1997, I'm not a MS fan...), it was far too easy to break it with a minimal change. But OS/2 should have relied on its own software. not Win3.x one.
With Google the issue is not if paid for ads are displayed more explicitly - it's if knowingly removed/blacklisted links of competiting services (or put them far below from they would have appeared without manipulation), if it ripped other site contents (what, if it happened to your very own one?). It's like net neutrality: do you agree that telcos could give precedence to traffic for which someone is ready to pay more, at expenses of yours? Or the kind of services telcos provide (and all of them are private business) should not allow for it?
I would just image what would happen if MS decided to blacklist Chrome on Windows systems...