"Essential" and "useful" are not the same thing. A web browser isn't an essential part of a desktop OS the same way a network card isn't an essential part of a computer. Even though network cards come with most computers due to frequently being useful, they're not essential to the computer being a computer... computers can very much come without them, which people occasionally also find useful. Also, times have changed, and the web has become a far bigger part of people's life than it used to be.

> A web browser isn't an essential part of a desktop OS

That's so 1997. I would argue that a desktop OS isn't essential to my web browser. All I want my phone or my desktop computer for is to browse the web (not me but that's true for the vast majority of people). All this nonsense that comes with the OS is peripheral. Not essential. The only thing my phone or desktop needs to do is turn on, connect to the web, and download facebook.com and any other website I want. That's it. That's essential. Network card: essential. Web browser: essential. Any so-called computer without a network card is as good as a brick to me.

I believe that this does not really address what "essential" means in this argument, and I find you're both arguing the same point but semantically disagreeing.

The idea of a Web Browser being "essential" to an OS is to mean that the OS itself would not be complete without this specific browser, which is in fact not true. Whatever combination of OS + browser you elect to use, or of you eschew the common OS parts in favor of it being entirely browser based is your choice.

That is the contention when Google, and also when Microsoft, try to claim that their respective browsers are essential to their OSes. (Before anyone tries to call me out, yes, Apple is just as silly with iOS, but at least they attempt to have some very fragile ground to stand on regarding performance)

So the argument isn't that a web browser isn't essential to modern day computing, it's that the OS itself does not need a built in one to be complete, or any specific browser to realize its goal of being an OS.

> How is a web browser not an essential part of a desktop OS.

MS argued that the specific web browser IE was essential and I think that's the type of argument that is problematic, both for MS and Google

I don't know if you remember the 90s, but it actually, literally was with the integration of active desktop and other features that brought html and web scripting (and all their vulnerabilities, but that was a blessed time before XSS had been termed yet alone abused) directly into Windows explorer.

Internet Explorer and the Windows shell were the same code. There's a reason why until this day the Windows shell is `explorer.exe` - it and `iexplore.exe` (IE) were the one and the same. You could open a file explorer to C:\ and then type in `msn.com` in the address bar, and the PC wouldn't blink.

Not just essential -- atomic. Inseparable.

> How is a web browser not an essential part of a desktop OS.

The short answer, at the time anyways, was that you could just delete it to no consequence. It was just another program.

Some of the phones do "need" a browser as they provide it as a feature to apps, so things are a bit murkier now.

That's the moment your OS becomes a "mobile app platform", or a "software distribution". Or just the definition of OS changes. Or maybe not, because Windows was always more than the kernel. And it always included Notepad. But Notepad was never essential. And traditional UNIXes always came with a lot of user space programs. (And thre are essential user space apps for POSIX-y OSes, right? Things like the coreutils programs, ls, stat, cut, test, rm, [, sh, etc.)

And there's the WebView component, that's part of the SDK, that's essential, and it can be a dependency, or it can be bundled into the APK. (There's even https://crosswalk-project.org/ that is basically new WebView for old phones - Chromium built for old phones.)