You seemed to be arguing that Apple were in no position to be a monopoly. I was showing that they have had the market position to have been included in some monopoly investigations already, and in that other part of the article have engaged in tax avoidance where they made an illegal sweetheart agreement with a nation state. I am suggesting that they have rather more dominance than you were making out.

Now a potential merger is being investigated by competition authorities which supports the article and directly contradicts your comment. Nice brush of though?

Those aren't anecdotes. What you posted are anecdotes.

My anecdotes largely match your anecdotes though :)

what was that about throwing stones and glass houses?