But aren’t you kind of making the opposite point? While Amazon wouldn’t sell AppleTVs and Chromecasts, neither Apple nor Google had any trouble reaching customers. If Amazon was a monopoly that wouldn’t be the case.

Apple also sells third party hardware on their site. Should they be forced to sell Dells besides their Macs?

- If Google removed Amazon from search results, then that would be anti-competitive behavior.

- If Apple banned the Amazon app from iTunes, then that would be anti-competitive behavior.

You can still access Amazon in all these situations at amazon.com, and just like with the chromecast and Apple TV, whether or not there is access somewhere is irrelevant to the nature of the behavior being anti-competitive. Amazon was being anti-competitive by banning competing devices on it's - platform.

Apple bans all sorts of apps from their store. Is every app that Apple bans “anticompetitive”?

Google removes and deprioritizes sites all the time that breaks rules. CVS stop selling cigarettes in their stores.

CloudFlare just kicked off 8Chan.

Spotify bans musicians. Which one of these are anti competitive and which ones aren’t?

All of those scenarios are where there was a terms of service violation. When Google or Apple decide to ban their competition for no reason other than it being competition, it's anti-competitive.

So since Apple sells third party hardware at Apple.com, should they be forced to sell Dells?

Apple stores only sells accessories to their manufactured products, and isn't a retail platform.

If Apple opened stores that sold a wide range a goods, including from other sellers, and then banned Dell, then yes, your hypothetical would be anticompetitive.

Then why aren’t apps an “accessory” to the iPhone where Apple can decide not to allow certain apps - including hypothetically Amazon? Do the console makers have a right to deny certain games on their platform?

Does a physical store have to sell every product imaginable?

When you buy an app from the App Store. Apple claims the entire price of the app as revenue, pays out the developer and gives the developer a 1099 at the end of the year. My relationship is no more with the third party app developer when I buy an app from the App Store than it is if I buy a third party accessory from the Apple Store or if I buy something from Walmart.

There is no difference.

Easy, Amazon just adds “no devices may be sold that compete with ours” to their TOS.

There's a difference between enforcing a TOS for everyone and specifically banning someone who is a competitor.

So if CVS wanted to sell their store drug brands at Walmart and Walmart refused, would that be anti competitive?

No that is not anti-competitive, because Wal-Mart isn't a platform that lets other companies sell through their stores. Wal-mart is notorious for using it's buying power to push down the purchase prices for it's inventory.

This type of question has already been answered. Are you aware of what sea-lioning is?

So Walmart isn’t a “platform” even though they sell goods from third parties but Amazon is a platform that sells goods from third parties? What’s the difference?

Amazon can behave like that because they act as a store, by taking responsibility for the delivery and covering returns/refunds. It means that amazon incurs in Losses to be classified as such. To be honest, that is the genius of amazon. A store backed ebay.

Pretty much how Apple does not sell other phone brands? Stores have the power of deciding what they sell and what they do not sell. This is not anti-competitive by default.

Apple stores are not retail platforms. The App store is more comparable to Amazon.