You can always define something as not a monopoly by asserting the truth that people spend their money on a variety of items so the monopolist is competing with manufacturers and purveyors of beer, diesel and kites for the sales. The existence of monopoly isn't actually the interesting test, the test is usually is there an abuse of market power to the detriment of competitors. Emphasis on "abuse"

The flip side is that you can always define any supplier as a monopoly too. Apple have a monopoly on the supply of IOS and devices running IOS. Semantic definitions of monopoly aren't terribly useful. Budweiser have a monopoly on bud light. Budweiser probably can't use their market power to make miller taste worse than it does.

I didn't much care for Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior, didn't care for the stories from the grey-beard's about IBM's before that. Maybe you've heard of standard oil. I don't care for apple's anti-competitive behavior either. Microsoft and IBM always had plenty of people who defended them too. I didn't need to give Microsoft 30% (is it?) of my sales revenue to sell software that is run by my customer on a microsoft operating system. I wonder if the general reaction would have been much different if microsoft had tried charging a significant percentage of sales revenue for all software vendors selling software that ran on windows in late 90s and early 00s

A monopoly is not always a negative, it is the behaviour of the monopolyquality determines whether it is good or bad.

I remember being taught about YKK, a monopoly producer of zips, they kept their monopoly by producing good quality cheap zips. The profit made was enough that they could stay in business but not enough that it was worth other companies expending capital to get into the market.

Monopoly is one state of the market on a spectrum in a capitalist economy, it is neither good or bad it just is.

And you are fundamentally misunderstanding that anti-trust law is about more than just monopolies.

Except you're not an antitrust law expert, you're a Random Guy On The Internet making up handwavey arguments that would never fly in court. Under this principle, you could say Nintendo has a monopoly on Nintendos and must therefore open secret APIs to developers, or that whatever cable box company has a monopoly on their particular brand of cable boxes, &c. Courts reject principles that lead to absurdity under simple substitutions.

I don't know what your comment about "anti-trust law being about more than monopolies" is supposed to mean. It says nothing, and furthermore says nothing with an authority to which you are not entitled, being not an antitrust law expert. So your unsupported and unreasonable claims should be discounted accordingly.

If the only people allowed to talk about anything are experts then we might as well shut down every forum on the internet including this one.

But have a read on the various pages written by experts and come up with arguments against what I said instead of just trying to attack my credibility.

No, the point is you have no argument in addition to no authority. It's normal to require one or the other.

My argument is, since you insist that I don't have any, that since Apple has total control of an ecosystem they themselves created that there might be an anti-trust issue there along the lines of Microsoft when they decided to include 'mediaplayer' with every windows install when and if an Apple app competes with a 3rd party supplied app.

Whether or not I'm a subject expert or not has no bearing on that. I suspect that the answer is 'probably not', but I have seen weirder lawsuits being won. The bar in anti-trust cases is very high but there are multiple standards of proof and multiple instances of potentially anti-competitive behaviour.

Microsoft including a media player, meant that >95% of desktop PCs had a Media Player from microsoft, thus there was no 3rd party market for Media Players. But microsoft did more than merely include a Media player with regards to IE. They embeded the media player into the operating system so you could not remove it. You had no option but to get it.

Lets say there was a device that allowed you to pay tolls from your car in bitcoin. GM including a version of that in their cars would not dominate the market. It would diminish it, but not devastate. But lets say GM sold 80% of the cars in the world. Even then, including the device wouldn't be a violation of anti-trust.

Through the early 90s, MS did this often, Media Players, Disk Compression, Defrag, the list goes on and on.

But, if GM had 95% of the car market, and included a device that only paid in fiat currency, and it was 'artificially' tied into the ignition computer, so removing it made the cars useless. Then had the device subtly interfere with any alternate device. Finally, there was evidence, (emails from CEOs, VPS) that GM did this with the sole purpose of preventing BitCoin as a currency. Then you'll understand the scope of M$'s efforts in the browser wars, and what it took to finally get them at antitrust.

You misunderstood how discussion works. YOU have to provide the arguments first.

I never mentioned anti Trust laws so I don't understand how I can be accused of fundamentally misunderstanding them.