Are you arguing that monopolies don't hurt consumers? There's valid arguments that could be advanced in that direction but since we live in a world where the common understanding is that monopolies are bad for consumers, it would be helpful if you were less oblique about your meaning.
Mentioning monopolies in the context of the benefits of competition doesn't seem irrelevant to me, quite the opposite, and perhaps as a result I didn't immediately jump to the conclusion that it was an attack on Apple or Google or anyone else.
I think it's the monopolist "competing" against the other companies that we're worried about. Where by competing I mean doing all those things I listed a few posts back that reduce consumer choice and competition in the marketplace.
Sure, but that’s not surprising. Isn’t it obvious that the concept of “competition” doesn’t make much sense when talking about a monopolist? And it’s also obvious that it would be stupid if the monopolist didn’t try to crush any possible emerging competition. It’s logical, it’s obvious, it’s not worth mentioning.
Mentioning monopolies in the context of the benefits of competition doesn't seem irrelevant to me, quite the opposite, and perhaps as a result I didn't immediately jump to the conclusion that it was an attack on Apple or Google or anyone else.