Apple is a bit of a herring here. Apple had a very unusual strategy of (a) not pursuing market share and (b) not building moats. This was part of their quirkin

Apple is a bit of a herring here. Apple had a very unusual strategy of (a) not pursuing market share and (b) not building moats. This was part of their quirkiness as a tech giant. The truth is that they are far more exposed to competitive pressures, and their own future performance than others. IE, the ipod had little or no moat. OSX never had 10% market share. iOS has tsomewhat of a platform moat, but they left the high volume segment of the market to Google. They have some network-effect-moats like facetime built in, but it doesn't add up to a persistent dominance. Facetime still needs to be better than whatsapp and skype on iphones to maintain popularity. In all their major product lines, the current competition could really hurt them if Apple underperform for one or two generations. iOS, OSX, itunes... Few other companies think like this. IE maintained dominance (despite antitrust) for a long time.It wasn't untill Firefox & Chrome broke their monopoly that browsers/www started advancing again. They survived bad operating systems, that no one wanted (Vista), extending XP by 5+ years past its use by date. Amazon dominate online selling. They had a patent on remembering your CC number, a mf patent! ...just to turn past market share into future market share. The infrastructure services are platforms, with lock in. Google is all about 100% market share, all about lock in. All about accumulating data so that they have FB has all the people and all the sites (FB tracking pixel). They have the best ad-targetting platorm for this reason. All the people regsitered. Detailed data on their FB dataset. Vast off-platform collected from advertiser sites (all the advertisers). I agree that part of the FB problem is that they aren't treated like news media, and are exempt from journalistic norms. But, this is also a red herring. Their monopoly is a problem regardless. Many of their acquisitions are defensive, buying potential competition. Antitrust needs a total re-build from the ground up. It's not about price fixing anymore. It's about taking up all the space so that no one else can play. I don't think that the standards of antitrust are any good right now. You have to prve price fixing, unfair competition or some other hard to prove and potentially irelevant activities. I think antitrust has to be preventive. It needs to make sure there is ample room in a market for innovation, and/or regulate all the giants by default. Got a dataset that includes all the people in a country? Maybe that should be a public dataset.