[scarface74]

No people didn’t choose to have Microsoft. Microsoft forced OEMs to bundle Windows with all of their computers. Even if the OEM decided not to bundle Windows, they still had to pay a license fee.

No personal computer comes with Chrome installed by default unless the OEM made a deal with Google to bundle it along with other crapware. Users have to explicitly download Chrome.

It’s a lot easier to change your default search engine than change your operating system.

The proof is in Google’s dominance. Google became popular when IE was the default browser on PCs and Safari was the default browser on Macs.

[rmacqueen]

The issue isn't how Google achieved its search engine dominance - it's what it is doing with that dominance. No one denies Google became the search platform of choice because it is genuinely better. That doesn't change the fact that Google is now using that position of near total dominance to stifle competition in other areas, such as e-commerce. That's the (sound) basis for the anti-trust charge.

[scarface74]

I’m saying that government intervention through anti trust actions were useless the last two times in the modern era - MS and IBM.

Facebook, Amazon, Apple, and Google came to prominence by being able to execute. Even MD stayed relevant while the other four were growing through better execution.

Why would anyone think that the government has all of the sudden become competent when it comes to regulating tech when we have forty years that shows just the opposite?

Did you see the dog and pony show when it the government trotted out the 4 tech CEOs? Would you really trust them to be both competent and not corrupt.