Oh I completely agree with you, but if United States v. Microsoft Corporation (2001) is any indicator, this is precisely the solution the Courts will prescribe. Apple will surely allow third party app stores over closing its own App Store for the sake of avoiding competition/the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a "Which App Stores Would You Like to Install?" prompt in next 3-5 years.
Please, I wish people would actually read the legal documents on this Microsoft VS US case. It wasn't just because they are used in 90% of the computers, or that they bundled IE. The reason why it boiled over was because Microsoft
approached Netscape to try to prevent them from creating Navigator which competes with IE. They tried to prevent them from creating it for Windows 95. Then Microsoft tried to work with OEMs to not allow Navigator to be installed in their images.
79. Microsoft's first response to the threat posed by Navigator was an effort to
persuade Netscape to structure its business such that the company would not distribute platform- level browsing software for Windows. Netscape's assent would have ensured that, for the foreseeable future, Microsoft would produce the only platform-level browsing software distributed to run on Windows. This would have eliminated the prospect that non-Microsoft browsing software could weaken the applications barrier to entry.
80. Executives at Microsoft received confirmation in early May 1995 that Netscape was developing a version of Navigator to run on Windows 95, which was due to be released in a couple of months. Microsoft's senior executives understood that if they could prevent this version of Navigator from presenting alternatives to the Internet-related APIs in Windows 95, the technologies branded as Navigator would cease to present an alternative platform to developers. Even if non-Windows versions of Navigator exposed Internet-related APIs, applications written to those APIs would not run on the platform Microsoft executives expected to enjoy the largest installed base, i.e., Windows 95.
So, as long as the version of Navigator written for Windows 95 relied on Microsoft's Internet-related APIs instead of exposing its own, developing for Navigator would not mean developing cross-platform. Developers of network-centric applications thus would not be drawn to Navigator's APIs in substantial numbers. Therefore, with the encouragement and support of Gates, a group of Microsoft executives commenced a campaign in the summer of 1995 to convince Netscape to halt its development of platform-level browsing technologies for Windows 95.
81. In a meeting held at Microsoft's headquarters on June 2, 1995,
Microsoft executives suggested to Jim Clark's replacement as CEO at Netscape, James Barksdale, that the version of Navigator written for Windows 95 be designed to rely upon the Internet-related APIs in Windows 95 and distinguish itself with "value-added" software components. The Microsoft executives left unsaid the fact that value-added software, by definition, does not present a significant platform for applications development. For his part, Barksdale informed the Microsoft representatives that the browser represented an important part of Netscape's business strategy and that Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 were expected to be the primary platforms for which Navigator would be distributed.
143. Decision-makers at Microsoft worried that simply developing its own attractive browser product, pricing it at zero, and promoting it vigorously would not divert enough browser usage from Navigator to neutralize it as a platform. They believed that a comparable browser product offered at no charge would still not be compelling enough to consumers to detract substantially from Navigator's existing share of browser usage. This belief was due, at least in part, to the fact that Navigator already enjoyed a very large installed base and had become nearly synonymous with the Web in the public's consciousness.
If Microsoft was going to raise Internet Explorer's share of browser usage and lower Navigator's share, executives at Microsoft believed they needed to constrict Netscape's access to the distribution channels that led most efficiently to browser usage.
There are more details at justice.gov.
