This would have been fine if Windows wasn't 95+% of desktop computer market share at the time. The regulatory argument was that Microsoft was abusing their desktop OS monopoly to give themselves an unfair advantage in another market (browsers).

By contrast iOS is ~50% of mobile OS market share (in the US, I think it's less elsewhere). Hardly a monopoly. If using a different mobile browser is important to you, there's a competing, popular mobile OS that can provide that.

People always say "oh you can just switch mobile OSes" as if that's as simple as walking into a Target instead of a Walmart.

Ecosystems exist. Throw away your phone and every piece of software you've ever bought for it just so you can install a particular app? Ridiculous.

This logic doesn't work with just two competitors globally. What if choosing my browser isn't the only thing important to me?

If governments give corporations with such overwhelming market dominance completely free rein then developers are nothing more than sharecroppers and consumers are going to pay the price either financially, in terms of privacy or through limited choice.

> Hardly a monopoly

The specific term here would be duopoly.

And a duopoly still has a large ability to engage in anti-competitive practices that harm the market.

50% of a market is with the realm where you can cause significant harm to competition.

Apple makes 100% of the OS options available to iDevices, and 100% of all devices that run iOS.

They also control 100% of the OSes that run iOS applications, and allow iOS purchases to be redeemed.

That sounds a lot like a monopoly to me.

Yeah, if you've chosen a contrived and extremely narrowly defined market as the one you base whether something is a monopoly, of course it's going to sound like a monopoly.

Your response fails to meaningfully address any of the points in the post it is responding to

you could have saved time and just said "I disagree but refuse to explain my disagreement"