[evilduck]

Walmart has 100% monopoly over their store space. Verizon has 100% monopoly over what can connect to their network. Google has a monopoly over the Play Store. Cows have a monopoly over milk production. At which point does this argument stop working?

> I doubt ms had 90% of consumer electronics market or even os.

You should probably look that up then, instead of "doubting": https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-courts-findings-f...

[sepiatone]

Yes, but Walmart cannot stop another supermarket from opening in the same area, Verizon cannot stop you from bringing another phone to their network. Android allows other stores. Cows? Oh wait, you've got me there.

[evilduck]

You sure about that? Small town businesses have lamented Walmart moving in for ages, Verizon can _absolutely_ prevent another phone from joining their network, they even charge activation fees on top of it all. And Android _is_ the alternative store if you don't like shopping on iOS, and the monopoly holder to boot. I can't run .ipa files on Android either, why can't we sue Google for not supporting that SDK, since they're a smartphone OS monopoly holder?

[LordDragonfang]

While I agree with everything you're saying, Google's android literally allows you to install third party app stores and even sideload apps. Google does not behave at all like Apple in that regard.

[evilduck]

Sure, but how does that make Apple a monopoly abuser without broadening the definition to the point of it being applicable to damn near everything?