> Legally irrelevant. If that was relevant, Microsoft wouldn't be attacked for bundling IE.

I would argue that this shows that it is legally relevant. Because it is possible to say that IE is not part of the OS but an application, we can talk about “bundling” products together at all. If IE and Windows were one indecomposable unit, I don’t think the EU would have had a case.

They never were. But is very successful and impressive PR by MS that you think that this is what the problem was.

Those devious Microsoft PR execs at the Justice Department...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....

United States v. Microsoft Corporation, 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001),[1] was a noted American antitrust law case in which the U.S. government accused Microsoft of illegally maintaining its monopoly position in the PC market primarily through the legal and technical restrictions it put on the abilities of PC manufacturers (OEMs) and users to uninstall Internet Explorer and use other programs such as Netscape and Java.

“ The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Windows operating system.”

So yeah, follow your own advise. Because if you would, you'd find gems like this in the actual court case I cited:

"After trial, the court found Microsoft had violated Section 2 by unlawfully maintaining its monopoly in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems (“OSs”) and by unlawfully attempting to monopolize the market for internet browsers, and that it had violated Section 1 by illegally tying its Windows operating system and its Internet Explorer (“IE”) browser."

What is this, a court of law?

> Please tell us how, then. Preferably in a way unlike the whole GDPR cookie policy fiasco.

You don't get to blame the GDPR for those pointless pop-ups webmasters choose to display that are not even remotely compliant.

> Where you can impose your wishes on other's product choices? This is not a company usurping its monopoly, it's a niche product tweak.

Microsoft is the one which tries to impose its choices on others. In any case it wouldn't be me but us, we live in a democracy.

MS Office and Google search aren't niche products either.

You're talking about legislature (i.e. state stepping in). What did you think this was about? Crossfit?

> You don't get to blame the GDPR

Of course I do. Badly designed laws need to be blamed.

> MS Office and Google search aren't niche products either.

But ProPlus is. Either you are deliberately conflating the issue or you don't know what you are talking about.

What the law currently happens to be is irrelevant to the question what it should be.

> Of course I do. Badly designed laws need to be blamed.

Please tell me how those pop-ups reflect a design flaw in the GDPR.

> But ProPlus is.

It's a version of Office.

I advise you to take a civics course. This is literally not true.

> Please tell me how those pop-ups reflect a design flaw in the GDPR.

In short: GDPR failed to correct the incentives and lead just to more boilerplate disclaimers. Some of GDPR is good, but this part definitely isn't.

> It's a version of Office.

Yeah... That's the definition of a niche product. Because, it's targeted at niche audience.

Honestly, I'm not interested of arguing with you anymore. When people start throwing platitudes against facts, that's the time I lose interest.

It would be easier if you explained to me how this possibly can be not true.

> In short: GDPR failed to correct the incentives and lead just to more boilerplate disclaimers. Some of GDPR is good, but this part definitely isn't.

The incentives people think the GDPR sets are obviously broken but what about the ones it actually does set as written? The law is fine, the enforcement is disappointing so far.

> Yeah... That's the definition of a niche product. Because, it's targeted at niche audience.

If Office is targeted at a niche audience then everything is a niche audience.