> How many people choose a Microsoft OS when they buy their Intel processor? This choice is rarely, if ever, made by the end consumer.

Every single consumer makes this choice, because THE ALTERNATIVE IS COMPLETELY FREE. It is so free and good that most of the internet - actual commercial operations - run on it. Sure, if you're into video games or video editing, then Linux has some problems, but almost anything aside from that works pretty well.

>Delivery times aren't long at all, that's never been the problem.

Spoken as somebody that lives in a major country. Ordering something from Amazon takes 1-2 weeks for it to arrive. And that's good, because the alternative websites, of which there are many, often don't arrive at all! They sell something and say it's "in stock", but it really isn't.

A couple of years ago I wanted to buy a HDD. I went to a local online seller of PC parts, it said the HDD was "in stock", I bought it. A few days later I get an email saying that the HDD would arrive in 10 days time, but that the price from the warehouse they're ordering from has increased. I can either pay more or they will refund me the money.

Amazon has a "monopoly" because many of its competitors suck.

But all of this is beyond what I'm talking about. Amazon got so big because they offered a great service, as did Google, Microsoft, Apple etc. We have some of these in Europe too, but for some reason this hasn't happened nearly as much in the past few decades compared to before - where's the modern equivalent of Nokia?

>Arguing that Google somehow offers a better user experience for the average person sounds.. not well thought through at best, but actually quite disingenuous.

If it doesn't, then why don't you use one of the many alternatives?! It's literally like 5 clicks to make the alternatives work! I default to a different search engine than Google, but frequently have to go back to Google because the one I'm using simply can't find the relevant answers I want. Sure, Google isn't perfect - nowadays the search results feel like they're getting worse, but it's still a very good service.

>You're asking why there is a lack of monopolization of digital services in Europe under a post about more successful European antitrust laws.

But these companies didn't initially become successful because of monopolies. They became successful by offering a very good product.

>That's why a European Amazon is wishful thinking until the digital single market is complete or at least mature and comparable to the US service market.

The irony, of course, is that Amazon itself does work in Europe. The delivery times are long, but you can order in almost any corner of the EU.

>Microsoft and Google: First mover advantage of the US. Just a 2-3 year lead in the software sector will result in the monopolization of parts of it.

But when it comes to an OS the first mover advantage was so long ago. At this point somebody in Europe could've started building and heavily pushing a Linux-based OS as an alternative. Hell, this is something that could even work when done by the government, because they could start by using it in government services.

Google also wasn't the first search engine. Nor are they the last - there are already other alternatives. Even some European ones, but they aren't as good.

> There are a lot of historical and inherent reasons EU is playing catchup to US in pure economic indicators.

Not when it comes to digital services or computer hardware though. Why are all the CPUs designed by American companies and manufactured abroad?

How come there is no Microsoft or Google or Amazon or Apple or... equivalent in Europe? I don't mean that it has to be a big corporation, but rather that they offer some service that is globally the leader. All we seem to have is SAP and... Spotify?