I don't think so.

The examples of IBM and Xerox were truly dominant in their day.

I'm not going to get into the definition of "monopoly" here. But there's a reason for the "No one ever got fired for buying IBM" quote, and there's a reason that "Xerox" is/was basically synonymous with "photocopy". No one calls an Android device an "iPhone".

Apple captures basically 100% of the market excitement and profit, but not sales or penetration. Apple is not dominant anywhere near what IBM and Xerox were.

So, for me this fails the test of ~"sales and marketing running the company and not bringing forward great new products". Apple is still delivering.

Apple is not all things to all people -- but no one is without choice. I think Apple, and Apple customers, are happy with Apple.

Arguably yes. I'll note that the quote was from 1995 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs:_The_Lost_Interview

If Apple was a monopoly, sure. But Apple is not a monopoly.

People so eager to defend Apple from "monopoly" that they completely ignore the point, which is equally valid when you are not a monopoly but have a extremely sturdy market penetration.

How is Apple a monopoly?

In the "gigantic moats with minimal connection to product quality" sense. The app store and rich messaging have clear two-sided-market dynamics and they own a bunch of customer photo albums too.

Anticompetitive market structure is bad for consumers loooong before it results in an actual literal "only one company in a broadly defined niche" monopoly.

In much the same way Boeing is—they are one of only two options.

Not sure I buy that. They're one of only two options in operating system but one of many in hardware models. They're much less able to win regulatory capture being a far less regulated industry and in a consumer market.

Pray tell, what are my options in hardware if I want a laptop with a good (Apple-level) touchpad, battery life, screen and performance?

You could argue I'm just saying they're high quality, which may be true, but the software has been degrading and I have no options if I value openness _and_ quality.

How is being the only good company making laptops a monopoly? Seems like you recognized that point in your second paragraph but bears repeating how ridiculous of a comparison to Boeing that is

I don't give a shit about touchpads. Apple for the majority of its history didn't have superior performance and even today they have some product that are under-powered in regards to ram.

I can flip it and mention features that Apple products don't have that I like.

But this isn't actually an argument for monopoly. That just an argument that you like a company more then the other.

That's pretty much the textbook definition of an oligopoly which is explicitly not a monopoly.