The reason Apple is so big is that they were clever enough not to create an anti-competitive monopoly. Ironically the way they did this was by creating a walled

The reason Apple is so big is that they were clever enough not to create an anti-competitive monopoly. Ironically the way they did this was by creating a walled garden that doesn't actually allow for any competition. They produce their own hardware, running their own OSes with their own app stores, their own web browsers and their own entertainment platform. Instead Google and Microsoft were struck down repeatedly for trying to create similar lock-ins but on arbitrary hardware or arbitrary OSes. Another deciding factor is that Apple increasingly focuses on a specific segment of the market, becoming a lifestyle brand more than a tech company. This has allowed them to create a perception of ubiquity without actually having to control the majority of the market (internationally, anyway) yet still making loads of money because the segment they focus on is so willing to part with money (not just for $1000 iPhones but also $70 cables and $20 apps). Google and Microsoft needed anti-competitive contracts to gain a majority share of devices (Android smartphones for Google, the IBM-compatible PC desktop for Microsoft) because those devices were running other companies' hardware. Similar strategies are still being used to wall-in the web (with Google's AMP and Facebook's Instant Articles). Apple creates lock-in by brute force: you have an iDevice, so you're using iServices because it's convenient and you'll migrate over all your other tech to iDevices too because the synergy is compelling and there's simply no other option (good luck trying to use iMessage with your Android friends, or consuming iTunes content on your Microsoft tablet). Even with Android and Windows, Google and Microsoft don't have that luxury: you may be using a Google phone but that doesn't mean you're using a Google laptop (simply because ChromeOS is not always feasible), or you may be using a Microsoft laptop but Microsoft phones are simply no longer a thing. Microsoft's answer is similar to part of Apple's strategy: focus on a specific market segment. Their segment of choice is enterprise users, but also developers (a segment which conveniently Apple has lately been neglecting). Google's answer is to lock you in by hoarding all your data and providing value based on being able to harvest all that data. Facebook seems to be copying Google's approach, except they don't even distract themselves with smartphones or laptops and go straight for all your friends and family by owning your communication (both indirect via your Facebook feed and direct via WhatsApp). That said, I believe "privacy violations as a business model" is a consequence of the US startup scene's heavily anti-privacy legal context. It will be interesting to see how these companies adapt as privacy regulations like the GDPR show their teeth and international laws begin to follow. Data ownership and privacy as rights aren't exactly compatible with how these companies need to operate in order to function.