Well what is your definition of monopoly? Amazon, like other big tech, like to use their highly profitable BUs (Amazon AWS, Google ads, Meta ads) to prop up other failing BUs. This is extremely anti competitive.
We should not be shepherding a new tech baron era, but enforce competition in markets. Competition should be the highest thing we value in an economy. This experiment of consolidations, mergers, and acquisitions since the 80s has been disastrous. We're reaching the point where we should break up nearly every multinational conglomerate, they've abused too much and suffered too little.
Amazon is certainly leveraging anti-competitive power here, but I think your justification is wildly off-track. Our goal shouldn't be to force FAANG into a frenzy where they constantly depose one-another, but to stimulate the market for competitive growth. Making companies less-certain about new or novel releases would be the worst way to do that.
Some of the world's most innovative products were designed by subsidized Business Units. The original Mac Lisa wouldn't have been developed if it wasn't propped-up by the success of the wildly-popular Apple II/IIc. Even though it failed, there's not a single nerd on either side of the Apple row that would call that anticompetitive or a mistaken product.
Can you provide an example of a product where Amazon enjoys a monopoly (or even something close to a monopoly)?