The control over what iOS developers can do has been the source of a lot of contention recently. Facebook is Big Bad as we all know, but I agree that they’re not as much a monopoly.

Duopoly isn't much better than a monopoly. Especially when the other half does basically the same anti-competitive behaviors.

Really, of all of these, Apple is seemingly the most blatant in their anti-competitive behaviors. Google and Facebook at least offer choice even if that choice is a somewhat of an illusion. Apple just flat out forbids competing with it in distributing iOS apps and vigorously guards its cut of subscription revenue.

I mean, things like https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/3/18651344/wwdc-2019-apple-f...

are definitely gonna run Apple into trouble.

This is basically the definition of what is known as "tying".

See, https://www.theantitrustattorney.com/antitrust-laws-prohibit... for a fairly good description.

(This was the claim against MS - tying OS and browser).

Apple has far more insidious control over the iEcosystem then Microsoft did during its brush with the 1999 anti-trust courts. This is bad for developers, and may be bad for users.

Facebook owns ~95% of the 'social media' market in the US. (And is proving surprisingly capable at buying its way out of irrelevancy.) This may be bad for advertisers, for users, or for competitors.

Except Apple isn’t a monopoly on mobile devices.

How can you be said to have a monopoly on your own platform when that platform itself is a small % of the market?

The argument is ridiculous on its merits unless you are willing to ignore years of established case law (which is the basis of our Jurisprudence)