So you agree that breaking up the big four does make sense, but only as long as it doesn't impact the services that you receive. Which is great, I agree. No one wants to regress, but that's the point. We're only progressing at the speed they allow us to right now.
Look at telecom as a direct analog to this situation, because it is. What's in it for a major player to innovate rather than sweat existing assets if they don't have a competitive driver to do so? If you've got no choice but to buy from me, why am I remotely interested in giving you anything that costs me more money to deliver? We broke up Bell and BT and large telcos around the world for exactly this reason.
The separation of Gmail and Alphabet Advertising doesn't automatically make Gmail a chargeable service, BTW. There's nothing stopping Alphabet paying Gmail for the right to use their platform to sell advertising space, just like ad agencies pay Maiden for the right to put billboards up on their real estate. There's also nothing in that situation stopping someone coming along and giving Gmail a better offer, or another mail platform giving Alphabet better pricing. None of that culture exists right now, and Google isn't even the worst culprit. Facebook are the very first in my crosshairs when I'm emperor of the world.
Oversized companies dominating large markets have resulted in competition and improved customer product and service delivery exactly zero times in the history of commerce. There's no logical argument to your position.
Telecoms provide a singular service or at least did when they were broken up. And they don't provide too many different services today. It's phone calls and data delivery.
Amazon provides disparate services for my Prime membership. I get free shipping, access to a growing catalog of movies and TV, free ebooks, and other things I haven't yet used, such as Whole Foods discounts. Alphabet provides me free email, search, office-competitive tools, cloud storage and the operating system on my mobile devices.
I don't use Apple products, and other than FB being a den of dishonesty and a forum for the lowest common denominator of society, I don't care about them.
Your argument is disputed by the actual real-world actions of the above companies. Google has developed many products despite market dominance. Amazon continues to introduce new services. Apple has direct competition on both the PC side and the mobile side. Facebook really just acquires companies, but whatever.
I understand your POV, but I disagree with it. The place I'd act on these companies is in forcing them to pay their fair share of taxes. Some oversight would be fair as well. Again, I can understand targeting something like Amazon Basics for selling competing products at cut-rate prices. That's using monopolistic power for competitive advantage. But even then, it doesn't negatively affect me as a consumer, whereas the problem with monopolies is supposed to be a negative effect on the consumer. They're controlling prices
down not up. It may hurt other businesses trying to sell competing products, but
that's not my problem.