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.