Make no mistake, that is one of the top 5 arguments that "Leave the trillion dollar company alone" types love throwing in every discussion regarding this topic. It's not an accidental or innocent kind of argument, it will pop up under pretty much every article that discusses Apple and Anti-Trust. It's an underhanded way of defending Apple's anti-competitive business practices akin to "let Apple be anti-competitive or [insert doomsday scenario here]". Instead of advocating for application of proper anti-trust measures in order to restore a healthy and competitive market, they want to maintain the status quo where the Gatekeepers can do as they please.

That’s what should have happened long ago.

As far as I can see there are only two possibilities on any kind of near term:

Apple can lock Google and everyone else out, or Google can take over the web fully.

Those appear to be our only choices right now. I don’t like either one. But I know which one I don’t like more.

Your argument relies on a false dichotomy that reeks of concern trolling. You claim we only have two choices, Apple's tyranny or Google's hegemony. That ignores the third option explicitly mentioned in the parent comment: aggressive antitrust enforcement. By saying "That's what should have happened long ago." you pretend as if we're now helpless, as if we can't still solve it by applying proper anti-trust measures asap.

The existence of a threat from Google does not justify the existence of anti-competitive business practices by Apple. We do not have to "pick a favorite" monopoly, we can and should use legislation to handle both. Framing this as a binary choice is a defeatist tactic that serves only to protect the Gatekeepers and preserve the status quo.

We are helpless now in the near term. It’s not trolling.

What can we do in the next two years (let’s say) that would accomplish both letting other browsers on iOS and preventing Chrome from taking over everywhere?

I don’t know of another option. As far as I can see, that’s it.

Longer term yeah we should break up Google. If they didn’t own Chrome that would fix the problem. But is that going to happen in the next year or two?

Or are we about to hand them even more control and then spend the next 5-10 years trying to unwind it?

As I’ve said elsewhere I don’t like this situation. I don’t think governments should have allowed it to get here. I’m not picking an”favorite monopoly”, just the option of the only two I see right now that I think will do less harm.

We’ve screwed ourselves and I don’t want to make it worse for (at least) quite a few years.

We are not "helpless" and setting an arbitrary 2-year deadline is a distraction. The DOJ and EU are moving faster than they have in decades. You ask what we can do? We can enforce browser choice screens and allow alternative engines immediately. This gives Firefox (Gecko) a fighting chance on mobile for the first time in history. Keeping the ecosystem locked down ensures Firefox never has a chance.

That line of roleplay of yours also seems to be just 'Doomsday Defense' part 2. Now you’re adding an arbitrary time limit ("next two years") to justify inaction. We don't need to "unwind" Google before we stop Apple's anti-competitive behavior, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. The fact that you view "allowing other browsers" (like Firefox) as "handing Google control" reveals the flaw in your logic. You are effectively arguing that we must destroy the village (the open web) to save it from the dragon, if this isn't concern trolling then I don't know what is.