Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do they need to do that? Their platform, their rules. You don't want to play by Apple's rules then leave Apple's sandbox. This is absurd. You have no rights and no freedoms while using a vendor's software. They knew the restrictions going in. This is going to die quickly in the courts.
Do you feel the same way about Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer and trying to crush all competition in the browser market? Or do you only feel this way because it's Apple's sandbox? At least with Microsoft you _could_ install Netscape. What's your choice here? Buy an Android? I don't know you; this is a legitimate question. I don't actually know that I have an opinion on the underlying issue (I'm quite libertaria…
Not a comparison. Windows was effectively a monopoly at the time where iOS is a strong but far from dominating force in mobile.
However if you want to make this comparison, honestly? Yes. I think the suit against Microsoft was justified simply because of how blatantly obvious their practices were designed to squeeze out other browser makers after the fact. However it's a different situation here: Safari has always been the defacto browser for iOS since the first publicly available version. There is no significant competition for Safari because there's no way to change iOS to utilize it in the same ways, and the Apple TOS for developers specifically states you cannot create apps that directly reproduce functionality of Apple's built-in applications.
Ergo, they are not decreasing the competition or being anti-market because there was no competition in the first place, and they made no secret of that.