Mozilla has reversed a browser monopoly? When? Do you mean back in the late 90's when Mozilla's predecessor (Netscape) lost their monopoly to IE? I guess that's technically true they reversed a monopoly back then... but that's not exactly helping your argument.
Google did it not by creating a good web browser, but by forcing their browser on users of the most heavily-trafficked search site and video steaming site (by breaking features for those who used a different browser). You know, the very same anti-competitive arguments that so many people are wringing their hands about.
> Why can't Apple?
Safari already is a better browser... for users. I'm sorry that it doesn't have let you do the same tracking bullshit that you can do in Chrome, but having Bluetooth and serial number APIs is not something I want in my browser. I'm ever so sorry that it breaks all the cross-site tracking cookies.
The reason Apple can't reverse a monopoly with a better browser is that:
1. Safari is for iOS and MacOS only. By definition it won't ever rise above the user base of those OSs, which are a small minority in almost all markets. That is also why you don't have to worry about it become it's own monopoly, like Chrome did.
2. Safari won't add all the user tracking bullshit you want because that is the whole proposition of Apple's ecosystem. You seem to have forgotten what a browser is: It's a user agent. It's supposed to work for the user. But if website owners have the option to steer everyone to the browser that lets them reach into the operating system and pull out the device serial number, they'll do that.
> Why is Apple entitled for a free pass on forcing browsers down their users throat?
1. We often let minority players do things that we would not let a monopolist do. For example, Spotify is a gatekeeper to music streaming in the EU (I have to license to them if I want to stream my music to any significant number of EU customers), but the DMA does not apply because they are too small. Apple is a small minority player in the browser market, too.
2. Building a Chrome-only website (and enforcing that with DRM) today is a non-starter because it means shutting out the small but lucrative Apple customer base. But if iOS users have the option to use Chrome, websites can force visitors to use Chrome instead. Maybe Google will even pay higher ad rates to sites when the customer is a "verified real person". Google will have a hard time determining who a real person when they aren't using Chrome... but I'm sure that won't incentivize websites to steer users to Chrome, right?
3. If users don't like Safari they have the freedom to pick a different platform. If users don't like Chrome, they have a degraded experience with the primary purpose of a web browser: To visit certain websites.
When Safari is dead and your web browser has become a TV, you can thank the standup folks at Open Web Advocacy organization. It would be so simple to add a provision to the DMA that website owners are not allowed to steer users to a different web browser... yet they don't. Funny, isn't it? I guess this isn't really about anti-competitive behavior after all.