> In an ideal world, there would be multiple companies offering search ads who compete to give advertisers the best RoI.
There are multiple companies that offer search ads, and they compete aggressively, they just compete primarily on the consumer experience so that they will be in a position to charge a higher price to advertisers because satisfying consumers makes their corporation-facing product (search ad slots) more valuable. This is what we as a society want. Consumer protection laws do not exist to protect businesses. Nobody is owed a viable business model. The cost of buying search ads is (mostly) dictated by how much other businesses are willing to bid for those ad slots.
> There would be multiple realistic options at good prices for companies who need office productivity software, Microsoft still has nearly 90%.
There are. It's a hard market to compete in, but Microsoft has several competitors in this space, notably Google Workspace, but also some lesser known ones like Amazon WorkDocs. Recently Apple has been targeting this market as well.
> If I wanted to sell in-app purchases, there would be multiple payment processors I should be able to use and I can chose who takes the smallest cut which would be way less than Play Store and App store
This topic has been beaten to death on HN, and nothing valuable will come of further discussing it. I'll suffice it to say that Apple's product is the iPhone ecosystem in its entirety, and defining a market as a single company's product and declaring them to be engaged in anticompetitive practices within that market amounts to a misuse of terminology.
We won't agree so I'll leave it but I encourage you to read the economic definition of monopoly power, as its not based on terminology or legal definitions
There are multiple companies that offer search ads, and they compete aggressively, they just compete primarily on the consumer experience so that they will be in a position to charge a higher price to advertisers because satisfying consumers makes their corporation-facing product (search ad slots) more valuable. This is what we as a society want. Consumer protection laws do not exist to protect businesses. Nobody is owed a viable business model. The cost of buying search ads is (mostly) dictated by how much other businesses are willing to bid for those ad slots.
> There would be multiple realistic options at good prices for companies who need office productivity software, Microsoft still has nearly 90%.
There are. It's a hard market to compete in, but Microsoft has several competitors in this space, notably Google Workspace, but also some lesser known ones like Amazon WorkDocs. Recently Apple has been targeting this market as well.
> If I wanted to sell in-app purchases, there would be multiple payment processors I should be able to use and I can chose who takes the smallest cut which would be way less than Play Store and App store
This topic has been beaten to death on HN, and nothing valuable will come of further discussing it. I'll suffice it to say that Apple's product is the iPhone ecosystem in its entirety, and defining a market as a single company's product and declaring them to be engaged in anticompetitive practices within that market amounts to a misuse of terminology.