in brazil, we used to have a law forcing this to be a thing. back in the laptop days, it used to be reasonably common for people to buy one without with linux, and pirate windows later to save money. or because it was plain cheaper.
it turns out brazil fomented a big userbase for linux for a while there. free market my ass, microsoft is an oligopoly. if this ever gets widespread i'm pretty sure adoption will grow for the simple fact people will at least get to fucking try it. microsoft wouldnt take it kindly though.
An oligopoly is a market in which pricing control lies in the hands of a few sellers. As a result of their significant market power, firms in oligopolistic markets can influence prices through manipulating the supply function.
I'm considering Macs and Chromebooks to be competitors. Maybe they aren't since those systems are very locked down, but eh, still shitty and not much practical difference IMO.
For TVs the manufacturers are the ones who control the bloated adware and make money off of it while on notebooks and laptops it is Micro$oft. Except maybe for TVs coming with Android TV OS, but I think even that can be modified to promote their services.
The price difference does make sense, it's the cost to cover therapy for the employee that was forced to preinstall Windows on a computer for the thousandth time
These seem to be the two most commonly supported distros by laptop manufacturers. Framework officially support these two distros, too (they have unofficial guides for a bunch of other distros though)
In practice. Technically, were M$ to go sue users left and right (or send those ISP-style "gotcha", now pay up) emails.
Luckiy, M$ knows well enough that 90% of that userbase wouldn't have too many qualms jumping ship if they got slapped with a huge fine, so M$ lets them be.
They value the high userbase more than a quick payout (and rightly so). However, there's no guarantee that can't change overnight (just look at Unity and before that, Adobe).