That would still be millions of users who don't have a choice.
The relevant law is Article 102 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the EU, which prohibits an abuse of a dominant position within the common market. Apple don't have a dominant position in the smartphone market, with a share of around 28%; it's not clear that Safari is in any way abusive, rather than simply a legitimate technical decision.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_competition_law...
Yes, it does: it sells placement on that browser, since it is the default browser.
And that's billions of dollars per year.
> Apple don't have a dominant position in the smartphone market
Apple has 100% market share in the "proprietary mobile operating system", just as Android has 100% market share on the "licensable mobile operating system".
Those are the market definitions the EC used to assess the case, not "the whole mobile operating system market".
Get you facts minimally straight :)
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm
"At this stage, the Commission considers that Google is dominant in the markets for general internet search services, licensable smart mobile operating systems and app stores for the Android mobile operating system."
Not only the EC used "licensable smart mobile operating systems" but it also used "app stores for the Android mobile operating system".
It assumed that Android does not compete with iOS and that the Play store does not compete with the App store.
So, if Android doesn't compete with iOS, then Apple has a monopoly in it's market: proprietary non-lincesable mobile operating systems.
It's manifestly legal to put your own software on your own hardware - I mean duh. Google is in hot water for working the levers to control software on other peoples' hardware.