[smoldesu]

Yup. It wouldn't be quite so close of a comparison if third-party browsers could ship with their engines intact, let alone at-cost to their users. Apple is using their control to block competitors. At their scale, that's a dangerous game.

[marricks]

They won't ever have a monopoly on a browser engine though, or messaging app.

Their monopolistic practices are, arguably, preventing other monopolies. If Safari disappeared 97% of mobile browsers would be Chrome (or use the Chrome engine):

https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/mobile/world...

[smoldesu]

That's speculatory, and furthermore I'd argue Apple is already failing to compete if their only competitive tactic is lock-in. Apple's anticompetitive behavior may well be the last thing stopping a browser monopoly. That's for the free market to decide though, and it's an entirely different lawsuit in the making.

[marricks]

> Apple is already failing to compete if their only competitive tactic is lock-in

Chrome has plenty of anti-competitive practices that aren't under scrutiny. Nudges in all Google owned software to switch, breaking features in other browsers (Firefox Whoops).

Like, I guess I'd be way more "pro this lawsuit" if Google was under similar scrutiny.

[smoldesu]

Google is under similar scrutiny. They are designated as a service and digital market Gatekeeper under EU law and will be reprimanded if they abuse a potential monopoly position. I personally support regulating Google, and the scrutiny of their (comparatively few) anticompetitive practices.

You and I can feel whatever way we want about it, it doesn't change a thing. Apple's market abuses are unique from Google's, and specifically you are asking the DOJ to punish Google for abuse that hasn't happened. Google's most egregious violation so far has been their advertising racket, which they were already punished for last year: https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-wraps-up-antitrust-case-aga...