It&#x27;s not the same claim. The claim against Microsoft was that browser and OS dominance had killed competition (&quot;cutting off the oxygen supply&quot; of other browser makers) and was literally distorting the industry.<p>Browser dominance on its own was not the problem. The problem was that Microsoft&#x27;s strategy was deliberately anti-competitive and monopolistic, and the browser was one symptom of that - not just because it gave MS massive market share, but because it created a technological chokepoint which limited the commercial potential of everyone working in the PC and Internet industries.<p>Remember, MS spent a lot of time and money promoting site&#x2F;browser technologies like ActiveX that only really worked on Windows PCs, and seem to have been an attempt to look out everyone else.<p>It&#x27;s hard to argue that iOS or Android are anywhere close to doing the same. Both may be walled gardens, and both have toxic effects. But they&#x27;re not de facto standards setters, and they can&#x27;t use their influence to kill competing products at equivalent scale. (They can and have killed or assimilated smaller products - but that&#x27;s plain unethical behaviour, not clear evidence of monopoly. Taking steps to crush Twitter, WhatsApp, or Facebook would probably count as monopolistic. Killing SmallAppCo is just shady; sad, but true.)<p>If it was found that Apple and Google were colluding, <i>that</i> would be a serious problem - just as both had problems when it was proved they&#x27;d made secret agreements about employee mobility and salary negotiations.