No, you didn't. You said he was a monopolist. I called you on it. No you're backpedalling on it. . . trying to justify your fallacious position. You don't have a clue what a monopoly is.
Here is exactly what I said: If Jobs was any sort of capitalist at all, it was of the "John D. Rockefeller" school....make and keep a monopoly.
"You don't have a clue what a monopoly is."
Apparently, neither do you. But I know enough history to know that even John D. Rockefeller didn't actually succeed in establishing a true monopoly, but he sure as heck tried....and so did Jobs.
But the simple fact is that Apple did NOT drive the personal computer industry except for a very few years at the start (the days of the Apple II), and still doesn't.
Apple established ultra-tight control over both hardware AND sofware, and thus had a far easier job of "making things work together".
Microsoft and Intel did come to drive personal computer industry.....they addressed the far harder problem of setting up a business ecosystem capable of working successfully with a much larger population of hardware and software makers. They succeeded in "herding cats".
Jobs implemented the strategic plan of Nathan Bedford Forest....."hit'em where they ain't", and was profitable in doing so. But Apple never dominated in any market except desktop publishing and similar graphics-oriented businesses. They "almost" succeeded in becoming a force in technology, due to their strong discounts for university users...but the sheer better capabilities of "Wintel" hardware and software eventually drove them out.