s/through/thought/

If you look at the Law of Armed Conflict (and I don't think it's changed since I studied it) the right of self-defense of a military unit is absolute, and obviates any Rules of Engagement that may have been tacked on locally.
If you're taking fire, whoever is firing has agreed in advance that it's OK for your unit to return fire.
That's not quite the same thing at the individual level, especially looking worldwide.
However, anyone interested in legislating all that away should, in my opinion, check their privilege, apply their law to themselves, and doff their security details.
I'm guessing that would sober up a few of these [gerund] [noun]s.

Direct; indirect; serious; trollish: what difference has anything ever made with you? Your though is indistinguishable from a Möbius hooey strip, from my end. Yet I am tasked to love you in any case, just like d_r.

Truth be told, I wish I could unsee that image.

Methinks you dropped track on the logic of the thread, but when has that ever been an impediment to you?

Yeah, bureaucracy: yeah.

Roughly the time a molecule was NOT plural atoms.

How about medical applications? 1mm^3 is actually small enough to be put in a pill and go through your digestive system. Cover it in some glass coating to avoid acid from melting it, swallow a bunch over a number of time intervals, have sensors on the surface that measure whatever can be measured and you may have some interesting results. It is still too big to be injected into your blood stream, need to shrink it another 10-100 times to do that I guess, but it is an interesting way to develop computing by combining it further with the medical field. You can actually embed 1mm^3 computers into your bones and other tissue and not even feel them probably, while they are sending their data to your phone and to your physician.

Sorry: when was a bureaucracy NOT individuals?

Because this is about whether or not a term is applicable, let's make sure we have the definitions straight, since I'm not convinced your use of the word "custom" or "customer" is applicable here (though I had never seen "custom" used that way before, so major thanks for prompting me to learn something new! :) ).

I went ahead and looked up dozens of definitions for both "custom" and "customer", and every single one of them mentioned some form of money or other valuable goods changing hands. They either said it explicitly (e.g. A customer (sometimes known as a client, buyer, or purchaser) is the recipient of a good, service, product, or idea, obtained from a seller, vendor, or supplier for a monetary or other valuable consideration.), or they said it indirectly (e.g. defining "custom" as "business patronage", which of course refers to money being given, since that's what patronage refers to by definition). But the point is, they all said it.

Which is to say, we're being provided a set of services so that we can be served up as a product (we agree on that), but I would suggest that our receiving those services no more makes us a customer than a cow being fattened is a customer of the slaughterhouse doing the fattening. What makes someone a customer is their payment for the goods or services, but no such payment occurs here, so while we may be the recipient of their services and the user of their services, we are not their customer.

No. I wouldn't. The market share numbers are in some cases nearly an order of magnitude different. Suggesting Apple has a comparable hold on their markets has no basis whatsoever in reality.

Google's search market share: roughly 90%

Apple's global smartphone market share: roughly 10% to 20% (it varies based on iPhone launch dates)

Apple's music market share: roughly 30% for retail sales and 10% for streaming

I wish I could find more recent numbers for music sales, since I suspect the iTunes share of the overall music sales market is much lower now, what with streaming services knocking the legs out from digital downloads. It's also worth pointing out that, as one of the earlier links shows, Android makes up roughly 75-80% of the global smartphone market, so if you want to suggest that Apple has a monopolistic hold over the phone market, what does that say about Google, given that their share is roughly 4x greater?

You are the left tonsil of evil. ;-)

News flash: "a conspiracy of many" = "bureaucracy".

As a libertarian my position never changed, I always root for the individual (and a company is property of an individual, so the same logic applies) to win against the violence of the collective. Governments are the ultimate and most violent (wars) representation of the collective. Government is the ultimate weapon of the mob against an individual and his freedoms. Realizing that the real virtue is in the Individual freedom and the non aggression principle is how you fix the issue of tribalism destroying rationality.

Those who cannot do - sue.

The entire premise of 'anti-trust' coming from a government, ANY government is laughable in every possible way. The only real monopolies that can abuse power are created by governments and it is government power that is abused by them, as for Google and other companies that compete among each other and may become dominant (for some time) in a market - this is due to the choice of the clients, who collectively vote for that company to be in a more dominant position at that time.