But that just underscores that this was a personal definition unrelated to what the law is. By the argument you proffer Apple shouldn’t be looking at other any other markets or products lest their competitiveness would somehow be anticompetitive due to already offering other, unrelated products and choices consumers can pick or leave. Should Apple have not sold the Watch? Should it not have gone into Maps? Or sold AirPods? Should they abandon their self-driving car initiative?
Apple Maps is mostly inferior to Google yet it makes the market more competitive. HomePod is a great speaker with smarts but not the best speaker, nor the best smart device with a speaker. So this ‘concentration’ hypothesis doesn’t persuade. It’s not a monopoly, and there’s nothing illegal, immoral or fattening about moving into new products, services or categories. And I don’t understand the argument that the more successful a company is with its products or services the less ‘wise’ it is to offer more.
I think it’s a wise choice for Apple to build on its core strengths. But a global search engine doesn’t seem to be one of them - ever tried searching in the App Store? 