I understand the point, which could very well hold up, but does the analogy? Saying that the analogy (argument) rests on "the fact that..." pretty blatantly be

I understand the point, which could very well hold up, but does the analogy? Saying that the analogy (argument) rests on "the fact that..." pretty blatantly begs the question. Is there a case where one company is both bigger than and wholly[1] depends on another, single company's services? I would be unsurprised if the answer is "no" and that this is the case because dependents are invariably absorbed or killed off by the "parent" before they can grow larger. [1] If the issue is monopoly, then my "quibble" is that, to Google (or any other electricity consumer beyond a modest size), no company has a monopoly on power.