The problem really comes when that monopoly position is used to impose unreasonable restrictions, or leverage the company into additional market advantages. That is abuse of a monopoly position, or lets say an advantageous market position. I accept that.

But you can't argue that features and restrictions that people freely chose when the company had a minority market share are somehow imposed unfairly or are leveraging unfair advantages. They had no such advantage, but users were perfectly happy with the tradeoff anyway, so clearly they're not being coerced or 'forced' into anything. They're just choosing it.