I agree that it makes Windows 10 highly toxic and unlikely to be touched, and that it's a horrific behavior.
I just think it came about as a result of a number of rational and ethically ~neutral decisions, rather than the level of deliberate malice and anticompetitive practice the Microsoft of the 90s had.
Understanding the motivation and decisions that led to an end result allows you to better gauge whether they're likely to, say, change their stance on a topic, or other decisions they're likely to make going forward.
For example, I submit that it is extraordinarily unlikely that Microsoft will actually end the Win10 upgrade program on July 29th, because their primary goal is to migrate as many people away from their aging older platforms as possible, onto a platform they can find ways to monetize into infinite incremental upgrades.
In other words, whether they're doing it to be Eeeeevil (unlikely), or for profit (probable), the result is still the same: "YOU WILL SUBMIT TO WIN10, YOUR LORD AND MASTER"
I just think it came about as a result of a number of rational and ethically ~neutral decisions, rather than the level of deliberate malice and anticompetitive practice the Microsoft of the 90s had.