I think the bigger case against Google on this front is with how they are tying Google+ to Google Search. I am actually kind of surprised they have not gotten more heat for it - if Facebook ever succumbs its market share to Google I suspect an issue will be made of it. But then, even with search you have to work very hard to make the case that people are "locked into it".
As it is, I'm staying on Windows 7 (I have only one laptop and need Word, otherwise I'd be using Linux instead of a Linux VM) and Paranaoid Android. No unwanted Micrsoft or Google products anywhere.
They're clearly going to continue to be left out in the cold in search. The PlayStation 4 looks very competitive with the XBox One (and the One is a helluva expensive Netflix or Blu-ray player). Mobile remains a disaster, certainly in terms of market share; ditto tablets for now.
Skype is interesting in consumer and business, but it'll struggle to ever pay for the acquisition (maybe in 30 years).
Their business / server / tools groups are by far and away the future of the company, as of right now.
Further evidence of this: The Sony PS4 that you point out as being competitive, is built on top of more than one Microsoft technology:
"Sony is building its CPU on what it's calling an extended DirectX 11.1+ feature set, including extra debugging support that is not available on PC platforms. This system will also give developers more direct access to the shader pipeline than they had on the PS3 or through DirectX itself
...
The development environment coders will use is based on Windows 7 and fully integrated with Visual Studio 2010 and 2012, allowing developers to debug PS4 code just like PC code."
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/03/sony-dives-deep-into-t...
Most non-tech savvy types want the ability to have their email, cloud document storage, cloud music service, browser history / favourites, all effortless syncronised between devices.
MS have actually been not that bad at doing this in metro. The share charm is extendible, integrating things like DropBox wouldn't be hard.
So long as they make APIs for say extending the images selection thing available to 3rd parties, I don't think its that bad.
yeah it's not as easy as in firefox, this was how it looked
http://cdn.howtogeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/image318...
but now google has bubbled up to the top
http://www.iegallery.com/en-us/addons?callback=true&featuret...
I find the term "Microsoft Account" to be disingenuous as it can be any email ID (my friends use their GMail) and that is a really nice touch since you can login to all their services with just your old gmail or whatever ID.
MS account | Apple ID
Skype | FaceTime
As for changing the default search, it took me about 90 seconds to figure out. I'm really not seeing a problem here. None of the things you mention are mandatory.
Also, integration is good for consumers when it ensure things just work, and Microsoft's approach is not fundamentally different from Apple's or Google's. Indeed, Microsoft is arguably less monopolistic than both of those.
Finally, it's extremely easy to set Google as your default search in IE10. It just requires an extra step, which means most people won't bother. However, it's not clear why Microsoft should give Google $1 billion to $5 billion a year's worth of benefits for nothing.
http://www.quora.com/Why-can-Apple-favor-their-own-programs-...
Given how few consequences past infractions have had, I doubt Microsoft worries about that. It has made a lot of money breaking laws but no-one was ever sent to jail and the company got to keep most of the spoils.
What qualifies as an abuse of market power? That's up to the Feds to decide, there is no set objective definition that can be run like an equation, such that you can be 100% sure you're breaking the law. It's extremely difficult to know beforehand, and the only safe way to approach it is to either directly ask a federal oversight committee (which many companies do once they're in such a position), or to shy away from any kind of aggressive competitive behavior.
But as you appreciate, usually when a criminal is trial, the argument is about whether or not they did X [illegal act]. With anti-trust, the argument is not whether the criminal did X but whether X is illegal or not. It's always opinion.
Either way, Microsoft should still be judged entirely on what it did in 1995. It's not like the world has changed since then ;-)
How easy is it to match the iCloud experience on iPad?
It's the kind of thing that used to get them in a lot of trouble. I wonder if they are past this or whether they will get rapped on the knuckles for this at some point?