From the press conference this morning: "It is not illegal to hold a monopoly, Garland said. "
"That may sound counterintuitive in a case intended to fight monopolies. But under US antitrust law, it is only illegal when a monopolist resorts to anticompetitive tactics, or harms competition, in an effort to maintain that monopoly."
https://www.cnn.com/business/live-news/doj-apple-antitrust-l...
You are mistaken.
Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it unlawful for a company to "monopolize, or attempt to monopolize," trade or commerce. As that law has been interpreted, it is not illegal for a company to have a monopoly, to charge "high prices," or to try to achieve a monopoly position by what might be viewed by some as particularly aggressive methods. The law is violated only if the company tries to maintain or acquire a monopoly through unreasonable methods. For the courts, a key factor in determining what is unreasonable is whether the practice has a legitimate business justification.
https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...
You assertions are immaterial to the fact that they are breaking the law. Monopolies and monopolistic practices are flatly illegal.
You're also viewing this exclusively through the lens of the "consumer" experience while fully ignoring the effects on the "labor" and "supplier" market.
> The government seems to want to make it illegal to have a tight experience
Is there some evidence that a monopoly is absolutely required to have a "tight experience?"