[dmitriid]

> Because if they take down the #2 worst offender, that leaves #1 as the default option for consumers, and strengthens #1's position at #2's expense.

And yet immediately:

> ake down Apple and create more competition, and then I'll have more options and I'll be able to maybe choose some things other than Google.

But Apple is #2. In everything except AppStore revenue.

Google's Android is #1

Google's Chrome is #1

Google's search is #1

Google's ad engine is #1

Google's Gmail is #1

[midoridensha]

According to a quick google search, iOS has almost 60% marketshare in the US. Many other top-GDP nations are similar.

A bunch of people in India using Android isn't much help when you're in a country where most people use Apple.

By your logic, most monopolies shouldn't be investigated or regulated at all, because most people on the entire planet don't use their products. One airline is fine, because most humans don't ever fly. One car company is fine, because most humans don't have cars. Etc.

[brookst]

Coke has 60% market share for colas in the US. Do your same complaints apply?

It all depends on how you define the market. If you’re motivated to desire a certain outcome, it’s easy to define the market in a way to get what you want.

[midoridensha]

Choosing to drink Coke doesn't force you to eat or drink anything else; there's no customer lock-in possible with a drink, nor any way of using that power to extend market dominance into other sectors.