yes, they are engaging in monopolistic behavior, which as mentioned above, does not require them to pass any particular threshold for being a monopoly

society has decided that some behaviors are in and of themselves bad, whether or not said threshold of yours is surpassed (for example monopolistic behaviors)

I just want to avoid going back to the time before Apple products were nice and relatively affordable, I hated buying a crappy Windows PC every other year and never being satisfied with it. Apple has transformed the entire industry twice in my lifetime, and I get really nervous when people say they should be forced to be just like another PC maker, and I should be forced to live again under a market that I absolutely loathed.

it's an interesting topic (whether Apple's monopolistic behavior has produced any good), but again, entirely orthogonal to the underlying question, whether Apple is behaving monopolistically (they are).

in the amount equal to how much you like any such benefits, other people dislike the downsides of monopolistic behavior, so we decided that it's bad even if maybe some good comes with the bad

I just disagree that Apple is behaving monopolistically. Dictionary definition of monopolistic behavior:

> having or trying to have complete control of something, especially an area of business, so that others have no share: She did not consider the fine a sufficient deterrent against monopolistic practices by big producers. The company is accused of monopolistic behavior.

Apple has completely control over Apple products and services, but not of the entire market, since there are plenty of other choices available in every market category they operate in. People who say they dislike Apple for its monopolistic behavior tend to seem to dislike Apple in general, and would rather not anyone buy their products, rather than just making the personal choice to not buy their products (because they indeed have many other choices and so can avoid buying Apple products and services).

your post does a good job of explaining how Apple's behavior is monopolistic, by that very definition, even despite not controlling the entire market: the "something" need not be the entire market

as for like vs dislike, the company isn't important enough for me to form such personal opinions about it, they're simply a company engaging in monopolistic behavior just like any other company engaging in monopolistic behavior

Again, the definition is clear. By the definition generalized in that way, any company building a proprietary system would be guilty of monopolistic behavior. If that's the case, then I guess it is a meaningless distinction anyways, and really not my worth much of my time to ponder either.

your own conclusions, whether about what other companies do or don't do (whataboutism) or anything else, are neither convincing nor here nor there, since the topic at hand is simply, is this one company in question (Apple) engaging in monopolistic behavior (they are)

the same goes for your personal opinions as to the meaning of such a conclusion -- while I'm sure you are a great person, and appreciate you respectfully commenting, such opinions are neither convincing nor relevant to the topic at hand: whether this one company in question (Apple) is engaging in monopolistic behavior (they are)

Look, Apple Silicon is neat, but you've lost the script if you want to claim it "changed the entire industry". The iPhone is an example of an industry-changer - actual industries changed here. Apple Silicon hasn't really changed the PC market - ARM is still a sideshow ISA for the Windows and Linux desktop alike. The market share hasn't changed dramatically. The line between people who want PCs and who want Macs is roughly the same as it was a decade ago.

> I get really nervous when people say [...] I should be forced to live again under a market that I absolutely loathed.

Well, that's the problem with walled gardens. If your platform exploits a tragedy of the commons to make money, society will probably eventually realize they're being scammed and demand fairer systems. A money-ocracy is not a solution to these problems, it's a clever guise to drain your wallet and make you think that life is improving because you spend money and buy products.

> Look, Apple Silicon is neat, but you've lost the script if you want to claim it "changed the entire industry".

Huh? I'm only referring to the Apple 2 (when Apple first changed the personal computing industry) and the 00s, when macs finally became fast and stable enough to be considered a decent value (one can argue it was the original iMac, but OS/X and then the first intel macbooks is when Macs really started making sense value wise). Apple silicon, a recent innovation, hasn't really changed the personal computing industry much.

> If your platform exploits a tragedy of the commons to make money, society will probably eventually realize they're being scammed and demand fairer systems

I don't think Apple is doing this. They are selling a decent product, which for some inexplicable reason other hardware/software producers can't seem to replicate. They seem to have a monopoly on "not sucking" but that's about it.