Apple does not run the largest advertising network on the planet. As simple as that.

Even for the matter of the browser, Apple does not have the same push as Google does. Yes, Safari is the default browser on a phone. But outside of the mobile world, Safari is a rounding error.

In terms of controlling commerce (google’s main line of business), non-mobile is on its way to becoming a rounding error.

> Apple does not run the largest advertising network on the planet.

No, but they're trying to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42185080

Apple does not have a monopoly.

There's nothing inherently illegal about monopolies, just anti-competitive behavior. While Apple is engaging in clear anti-competitive behavior (eg shoving the app store down customers throats), they've reined in restrictions of competing browsers so that they're actually worth using now.

What do you call the Apple store then if it's not a monopolization of the iOS ecosystem?

This article accurately captures all tech monopolies, Apple included.

https://ia.net/topics/monopolies-apple-and-epic

Well in the one legal case Epic vs Apple, the judge said it was nonsensical to say that Apple had a monopoly on its own product.

Judges get decisions wrong all the time.

Can't you apply the exact same logic to Google and Google's services being bundled together? The bundle is their product; nobody's forcing anybody to use the Google services bundle, but you're certainly at a disadvantage if you don't - the exact same - as with Apple, not using their provided APIs/following their ridiculous rules/not upsetting daddy or he'll take your app away is the exact same thing.

Probably worse so as Google don't seem to copy the features of companies and then spin them as their own all the time like Apple gets away with. Or to kill/remove/restrict competing apps when Apple decides to get into the market for something, or just generally as a "punishment" for not following Apple's strict rules (that only exist to benefit Apple, whilst they tell consumers "it's all 4 u baby").

In what way?

Who is going to provide a competitive browser for the price of $0 other than Google?

Microsoft could end up buying it

A far worse monopoly than Google is going to solve your monopoly problem?

And do what with it? They already are using Chromium for Edge. They would still need to monetize it.

Before Google, there were multiple competing browsers based on different technology, all of which were either offered for free or explicitly licensed as FOSS. Google used Chrome to put the web on an upgrade treadmill. The only way to keep your own code up-to-date with what websites expected was to either commit unending amounts of resources to the problem (Google), do the bare minimum to keep websites working as your resources are stretched thin (Safari, arguably Firefox), or just ship modified versions of Chrome so that it's easier to merge in new features (Edge, Opera, Brave, Vivaldi, etc).

Before Google, all of those options sucked. Chrome was a breath of fresh air, which was why it exploded in popularity.

I don't do web dev, but from what I've heard, web devs also suffered trying to support multiple conflicting browsers, and Chrome's dominance actually makes life much easier.

> The UX on Chrome is going to take a steep nose dive.

In order to dive any further, it would have to begin excavation.