This. How come the authorities cracked down hard on Microsoft in the 90's and early 2000's for exactly this but aren't doing the same with Apple and Google now?

I remember the days when, at least in the EU, due to antitrust laws, Windows XP had to come without Windows Media Player and without Internet Explorer preinstalled[1], which made for a rough out of the box experience for newbie users if they just wanted to quickly browse the web or play their "totally legit" mp3s after installing it, but it served to give competing apps and browsers a fighting chance and not allow Microsoft to entrench its monopoly further.

By the same logic, why can't we force Google/Apple to not prioritize their own apps and services on their platforms against their competitors?

[1]https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=144651...

So the difference is, Google/Apple never really look like bullies the way MS did, instead they look like companies innovating.

For the most part in mobile google just brought its already successful products to android, it hasn't from what I call explicitly tried to kill an already successful product in another niche? Well maybe with its various "social" attempts but they failed so bad it never became an issue.

But I do find it crazy how utterly disinterested they were with Apple for a decade, and how limited the current investigation into just in app purchases is.

What is Google doing that is an issue here? One can install competing app stores on Android devices.

How about Ubuntu? Would they be allowed to ship a terminal?

What about smalltalk running on bare metal? Do environments that blur the line between apps and the OS become illegal to supply?

Government regulated software will completely destroy all software freedom, forever.

Well played! Very dröle.

Which leads me to believe that what you're proposing is not addressing the root cause.

No thanks.