That is precisely what this story is about: Google To Require As Many As 20 of Its Apps Preinstalled On Android Devices <-bundling software, nothing about partner exclusivity agreements

But since you failed to comprehend that I'm not surprised you're having such difficulty with following a discussion thread so I'll point it out for you in list form that perhaps you have the cognitive ability to process:
Remember when simply bundling IE was a monopoly abuse? Google is behaving in exactly the same way <-bundling software
I think Microsoft also required OEM's to not preload Netscape. <- bundling software
I don't think so, Compaq shipped Windows PCs with Netscape preloaded. <- bundling software

And then this post changed the topic of discussion from bundling software to exclusivity licensing.

The real issue back then was that MS required OEMs to install MS OS on every computer they sold <- not bundling software, exclusivity agreements

It really can't be any more clear. Now let's assume you lack the cognitive ability to follow a simple list, if you look here I conceded his point even though that isn't what I and the people I responded to were discussing anyway. So what is your point?

No, nobody was discussing partner exclusivity until this, but again your inability to follow a simple comment thread fails you.

If you want to refute this then do it with quoted examples then I can educate you on where you failed reading comprehension.

Seriously how is this impeding you from doing your work? Like a genuine example rather than a contrived, intentionally obtuse one. None of my applications work any differently on Windows 8 than they did in Windows 7. If you can't manage without the start menu then obviously OS X (not having a start menu) is not competition they would need to worry about.

Turn off SecureBoot then. When did the intelligence level of the slashdot audience drop to a point at which changing a BIOS setting ended up in the "too hard" basket? You can also still partition your hard drive and install the OSes side-by-side.

Because they don't actually hate Microsoft, it's just something to complain about. If they really hated Microsoft they simply wouldn't use it and would instead advance desktop Linux operating systems. But look at the hundreds of comments any story about Microsoft gets (and just look, most of them are about the marketing of name of it) and then when there is a new Linux kernel version you see a dozen or so comments at best, very few people here care about technical details or being clever anymore, it's just trolls, flamebait and irrelevance.

This site used to be about technical details and hacks to make things work differently, now it's about complaining that the out-of-the-box experience isn't palatable to whichever audience it isn't palatable to (if it's too user-friendly then it's too power-user hostile and vice versa). Nevermind that the obvious solution to any geek or hacker for the Windows 8 Metro thing is to replace the shell with something like LiteStep or install Classic Shell and boot-to-desktop, if the out-of-the-box experience isn't what they want then they'll buy it anyway and complain about it rather than taking the initiative to make it work how they want.

That sounds like an awfully complex setup, a mobile device, a computer running the transcoding software, a ChromeCast dongle and a TV just to play a video? Just plug the PC into your TV, that way you don't waste all that power doing transcoding and you can eliminate a bunch of devices that you don't need. You could even use the mobile device with a bluetooth/wifi mouse/keyboard app if you want to control it from there.

No it is about anti-trust issues with preloading software on a monopoly platform, that's what this whole story and discussion thread is about. What relevance does partner exclusivity agreements have in this context?

Yes you seem to have interjected in a discussion about the anti-trust issue with something else. Yes it was more difficult to find systems without Windows pre-installed back then and yes if you couldn't you had to pay a few dollars for the Windows license.

No, that wasn't the anti-trust issue, that was exclusivity partner agreements.

Leveraging a monopoly in one market to gain advantage in another is anti-competitive and violates anti-trust law. Microsoft used it's Windows monopoly to push IE on users and Google is using its Android monopoly to push gapps on users.

Now for what it's worth I don't think there is an issue, if the alternatives were actually better then users would install and use them rather than the bundled versions.

I don't think so, Compaq shipped Windows PCs with Netscape preloaded. The real issue back then was Microsoft offered IE for free and Netscape charged a fee for their browser.

Really? They pretty much own the global market for smartphones.

That's irrelevant, nothing ever prevented you from loading Netscape on your Windows PC either.

For what it's worth I don't think there's anything wrong with Google doing this, so long as you can install alternatives there should be no issue, but then that's what I thought about Microsoft too. If they alternatives aren't compelling enough to entice the users to install them then they are useless anyway.

It isn't irrelevant, you stated it and I can't find any evidence of it so you're called out as a liar, unless you can back it up, but you can't.

No, actually it is you who is not interested in the truth. Explain to me what exactly is it in that Consumer Reports test that is being tested? Is that thing on the end of the actuator supposed to represent some really thin leg? And the smartphone has somehow wedged horizontally down in one's pocket? Come on, don't be an idiot.

Frankly the level of stupidity on this issue is just astounding and now you are actually going to look at this test and tell me you genuinely think that is representative of a real world situation? Really? You point to that report and then call me a "hater troll"? No, I have a 6+ and it's great, I hope it doesn't bend and I don't really think it will but I'm not a shill, I'm not going to look at that test and pretend it demonstrates anything about real world usage.

Given the amount of discussion and debate on issues like this I don't see how you're coming to a conclusion about what "the slashdot crowd" thinks.

What do you mean "which is it"? I think I already made it pretty clear, it shouldn't be that hard to follow. Many people also say Microsoft is doomed to extinction despite having the most popular and common desktop operating system, do you believe them too and project their opinions on everybody else that posts on this site?

I'm not interested in Android phones but certainly going from a 5S to a 6+ the 6+ feels a lot flimsier. It still feels fairly well put together but it doesn't feel particularly durable.

The M8 is a lot less popular than the iPhone, in fact the iPhone is pretty much the most common smartphone model out there, produced by the richest tech company in the world which is why it is heavily scrutinized. It actually did garner a little attention with its shift to unibody construction in the M8 rather than the aluminium back with the plastic bezel in the M7.

Does it matter? The product is different, whether the inaccessible bits are working or not is irrelevant. It isn't price discrimination because the product is different.