The question wasn’t about monopolies, as for EU it’s just a question of anti trust behavior. And their mandate was implemented in only EU, not globally or worldwide and was mainly for the European market.
It’s al about preventing harm to the internal free market. To allow the free movement of goods and to defend the founding charters of EU. It doesn’t matter if it’s an American company, European one or Asian one. Eau doesn’t tolerate any threats to the founding principles of EU and the healthy option to compete on the market.
Being a dominant player isn’t illegal, just how EU in forcing google again to allow users to choose their preferred browser. If they still choose chrome then it will be completely fine.
A choice between 2 or 3 adequate products? That is what we have in some instances but not in others.
We have 1 option for a browser on iOS.
We have 1 option for a store on iOS.
If i could chose between iOS AppStore, epic store and steam, then I wouldn’t have a choice between 3 adequate options, but one terrible, one adequate and one excellent choice.
If I could choose between, safari, chrome and Firefox, then I would have one mediocre choice, and two adequate choices. Especially considering that better plugin support for Adblockers.
Having the ability to chose, to have the option of something that’s forbidden isn’t denying science. Today Apple removes choice by curating what can and can’t be presented to users.
Your confusing having a choice voluntarily, and refusing the possibility of choice.
It should not be up to Apple what choices customers get on their device.
It’s not apples job to prevent other companies on the market to try and compete against their services.
Apple must remove their thumb of the scale and let the cards fall where they may.