Top excerpts:
Monopoly legal principles revolve around preventing consumer harm. "The competition is just a click away" is true for aggregators, who are popular because consumers love the value they get from them. Therefore legal disputes on monopoly are likely to fail. If we decided as a society that we don't want to trend towards a few big monopoly/duoplies, we must create new laws. Great example of the nature of duopolies for aggregators (because they can play off each other to avoid monopoly critiques): This gets at a larger problem in many tech markets: the tendency towards duopoly, which often lets one company cover for the other acting anti-competitively. In the case of Apple and Google: Android’s presence in the market means that Apple can act anticompetitively with its App Store policies (which Google is happy to ape).
Apple’s privacy focus justifies decisions like limiting trackers, restricting cookies, and cutting off in-app analytics; Google happily follows Apple’s lead, which impacts its advertising rivals far more than it does Google, improving their relative competitive position. Apple earns billions of dollars giving its customers the best default search experience, even as that ensures that Google will remain the best search engine (and raises questions about the sincerity of Apple’s privacy rhetoric).
This isn’t the only duopoly: Google and Facebook jointly dominate digital advertising, Microsoft and Google jointly dominate productivity applications, Microsoft and Amazon jointly dominate the public cloud, and Amazon and Google jointly dominate shopping searches. And, while all of these companies compete, those competitive forces have set nearly all of these duopolies into fairly stable positions that justify cooperation of the sort documented between Apple and Google, even as any one company alone is able to use its rival as justification for avoiding antitrust scrutiny.