Simply pointing to large absolute numbers does not address the fact that all this was brought up during the trial, and it was shown that even Microsoft -- the largest, richest company in the world, with all that data and multiple billions of dollars -- could not compete meaningfully with Google.

The ruling has many data points showing those absolute numbers are meaningless compared to the scale of Google. If you want to talk money, MSFT was willing to offer Apple more than 100% of their ad revenues but still could not get the deal because Google could pay so much more. If you want to talk data, some of the findings:

- Thirteen months of user data acquired by Google is equivalent to over 17 years of data on Bing

- (98.4% of unique phrases seen only by Google, 1% by Bing; 99.8% of tail queries on Google not seen at all by Bing)

- "The disparity is even more pronounced on mobile. There, Google receives nineteen times more queries than all of its other rivals put together"

The idea that Microsoft simply decided not to "try hard enough" is countered by the fact that the court found that they did try and still failed, which was actually key proof that Google ran an anti-competitive monopoly.

You're welcome to disagree with the courts' findings, but ideally you'd do so after considering all the evidence that turned up at the trial ¯\_(ツ)_/¯