Steam does not fit the dictionary definition of monopoly, or the US legal definition, at this time. Feel free to consider them a monopoly, but by definition they're not.

I fail to see what definition, under Webster's, that you refer to. The closest would be the first definition, but that is basically the definition used by US courts as I described.

There are literal monopolies, and there are companies with monopoly power. Either condition would qualify for them to be called a monopoly. Steam(Valve) would only qualify, if at all, as having monopoly power. I make this distinction to make sure we're on the same page.

The courts have no specific percentage of market power required to hold monopoly power. The only guideline is that it usually doesn't happen below holding 50% of the market. However, the requirement can be much higher. The key here is that it's at the courts discretion. So while it may not technically be correct when I said they need to abuse dominance, it does need to go before the courts which would mean there would likely be an accusation of it.

On top of market percentage, their leading position needs to be sustainable over time. If competitors could keep them in check, or if a new entry to the market could, then they're usually not found to have lasting market power. This would, again, have to be decided by the courts. It also doesn't mean it would necessarily have to be easy for a competitor to do it.

Both of these conditions need to be met to be classified as a monopoly power. Following that, I think it should be safe to say that they're not currently a monopoly due to the second requirement. While no competing game store truly competes, they are capable of doing so. For example, Epic's "failure" as a game store is more to do with an intentional, or unintentional, failure to provide a quality product from a consumer standpoint. So while I was technically inaccurate with what I originally wrote, as I was generalizing, this is what I meant by saying it.

Steam isn't a monopoly. They have a massive dominant position, but it doesn't qualify them as a monopoly under US law at this time. In short, they have to be found to be abusing their market dominance. This lawsuit could potentially change that, however.

You could say that of literally any installer. Whether it's well placed or not, you have to put some level of trust in the download source for most software you want to install. I'm not trying to endorse using this, but I fail to see how this is worse than the status quo. At least in this case you can probably trust Microsoft to not be malicious themselves, above and beyond anyone's general opinion. For them, this would be likely be about metrics or convenience lock-in.

I think what you might be overlooking, at least from the point of why they would require it, is that there are just a lot less people in Canada. Their population is around 15% that of the USA. Even if a large portion of their population was interested, it would be harder to drive the numbers needed.

It's not non-compliance if a stay has been issued during the appeal process. This is how the courts work, for better or worse. The injunction also allows for Google, or Epic, to request modification for good cause. Further, there is nothing say that a more permanent injunction couldn't/wouldn't be applied later. I don't think a temporary injunction was meant to permanently resolve things in the first place.

And?

This is a civil case. There are rules around whether an order is stayed during the appeal process. I would assume this happened within those rules.

2024 to 2027 looks like three years to me. It can suck sometimes, but the appeal process does exist for good reason.

Others have noted that the fee to the customer and the fee to the restaurant are separate. However, what I don't see mentioned is that many/most restaurants raise the price of the food on the delivery apps. As far as I understand it, the pricing on the apps is controlled by the restaurant. An easy to look up example is McDonald's. Their food is about 15-20% more in app. I wouldn't be surprised if they negotiated lower fees, but even if they didn't the customer is still paying around half of that 30%.

This might differ for non-partner restaurants, but I know the delivery fees to the customer are higher in those cases.

They already have, to an extent. You can run many iPhone/iPad apps and widgets on the newer Macs. The UI on MacOS has also looked like it's been skewing towards touch for a while.

I can only speak to myself. I don't use a laptop too frequently, desktop is primary, but I'd say a touch screen is/would be useful about 30-50% of the time while on it. I often find myself wanting to just tap on things, with Windows and MacOS. It's usually limited to casual usage.

While I wouldn't assume touch is the primary desired method of interaction, I know there can be times where it would be easier, or more intuitive, than using the touchpad. Further, with Apple integrating iPad apps and widgets into MacOS it seems at least somewhat more likely to be useful/desirable. From a function standpoint, it's a feature that cannot easily be handled via aftermarket. As such, it's generally better to have the option for those that need/want it. The only real reason to keep it out is cost.

I think they were saying a reasonable minimum required cloud support period should be 2 years per $100 of the device's cost.

Apple doesn't produce their displays, flexible or otherwise.