> Apps that offer what should have been offered by the OS vendor in the first place.
Wouldn't that be anti-competitive? Similar situation when Microsoft was including IE on their system that made them a quasi monopolist with subpar product.
I'd rather have Google having stricter rules when it comes to malware.
Funny how Microsoft's including a useful tool for you know, getting on the internet, with their OS was the subject of an anti-trust suit just a few decades ago and now it's ok to force users to purchase all apps from the apple store, which takes 30% from every company wanting to sell an app on iOS.
> And why stop here? We should open the market for TCP implementations.
_Re-open_. There were, indeed, commercial TCP/IP stacks available for various operating systems until the operating systems started including them.
If we do a comparison with the browser situation, then it would be quite sufficient to allow people to install 3rd party TCP/IP stacks. Does Microsoft prevent that? I honestly don't know myself since I don't really use Windows. :D
I'm just about old enough to remember the versions of Windows which didn't ship with TCP and you had to install "Trumpet Winsock" to get on the Internet. This was silly.
The key to understanding the browser case is that, as MS wanted it, it would have tied client and server and rich application development together, all of which would have necessitated Windows. IE was a threat because of ActiveX.
agreed, I lived through those times, TCP/IP was not a thing, until it was. There was no reason for it to be in the OS until it actually became popular and therefor useful
I used various competing systems before that in Windows/DOS
Wouldn't that be anti-competitive? Similar situation when Microsoft was including IE on their system that made them a quasi monopolist with subpar product. I'd rather have Google having stricter rules when it comes to malware.