Microsoft absolutely IS facilitating a fair choice, what they're doing is making it so that consumers are left "in a lurch" where they have to re-up their licen

Microsoft absolutely IS facilitating a fair choice, what they're doing is making it so that consumers are left "in a lurch" where they have to re-up their licenses or end up with a totally unprotected computer. Please read on, I will explain. My experience just last month: you cannot run 2 anti-virus systems at once, they all aggressively lock out their competitors. McAfee causes Kaspersky to crash, and in the opposite case a lot of scary looking warnings go up. Imagine if insurance was done this way, or home security, or even physical security. Most fields of personal security allow for overlapping coverage. Anti-virus products explicitly try and avoid this and then use that to their advantage to force you to re-up, paying for coverage. Defender is the default option that steps in so that consumers CAN take the time to make a rational and educated choice. Because most consumers with anti-virus software didn't choose it! Anti-virus vendors compete much more at the level of securing hardware vendor contracts (or eking out an existence in counterpoint to them). This is REALLY important and is a case where Microsoft is actually being very progressive and pro-consumer. Anti-virus software, of pivotal importance for windows users, is now on even footing with games and word processors. They must compete for consumer attention and affection and demonstrate value and cultivate consumer loyalty. Even if Kaspersky is one of the better actors in this space, it's a space fundamentally toxic to consumers.