>Apple is a minority player in every single market in the world, including the US.

While I heavily agree with the rest of your reply whole-heartedly, this specific part isn't entirely correct.

You are correct that Apple (when it comes to smartphones) is a minority player worldwide, but it isn't the case in the US, where it sits at a comfortable 58% smartphone market share [0], thus making it a majority player.

0. https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united...

That link does not load for me and it contradicts Statista[0] so I am not sure exactly what to believe.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held...

I believe the OP is using "market share" as porportion of revenue" of the marketplace and not actual number of users.

I'm highly skeptical that iOS is greater than 50% of the US market based on the endless web analytics I've looked at through my career (and that >50% goes back a number of years in their stats).

>You can't have monopolistic behavior without a monopoly

This is wrong. Monopolistic behavior is anti-competitive behavior that doesn't require having a market monopoly.

Think of it as a pattern of behavior that moves you towards having a monopoly.

>This is wrong. Monopolistic behavior is anti-competitive behavior that doesn't require having a market monopoly

okay, sure. but it's only illegal when you have a monopoly.

In the U.S.

E.U. does not require a dominant market share to fine companies for monopolistic behavior.

It does, but: "In the AKZO v Commission case,[79] the undertaking is presumed to be dominant if it has a market share of 50%. There are also findings of dominance that are below a market share of 50%, for instance, United Brands v Commission,[74] it only possessed a market share of 40% to 45% and still to be found dominant with other factors. The lowest yet market share of a company considered "dominant" in the EU was 39.7%.If a company has a dominant position, then there is a special responsibility not to allow its conduct to impair competition on the common market however these will all falls away if it is not dominant." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

Which market would Apple be moving towards having a monopoly in, in the App Store policy case?

The mobile app market, there's only two companies in this market anyways, it's not that hard to prove monopolistic behaviours.

Who loses when Apple doesn't allow other payment systems on it's phones?

That's literally every company trying to increase their marketshare.

Anti-competitive behavior is different than typical growth operations.

I agree, that's my point. Growth moves you towards having a monopoly, but growth by itself is not anti-competitive.

It is not wrong. It's not monopolistic behavior without a monopoly. Anticompetitive behavior can lead to a monopoly and that type of behavior can be considered illegal. However, this behavior from Apple is not an illegal attempt to control more of the market. If anything it is net negative for Apple and their marketshare.

This boils down to semantics:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopolist.asp

>In many jurisdictions, such as the United States, there are laws restricting monopolies. Being the sole or dominant player in a market is often not illegal in itself. However, certain categories of monopolistic behavior can be considered abusive in a free market, and such activities will often attract the monopoly label and legal sanctions to go with it.

While it is correlated, monopolistic behavior is not always from a monopoly. Suppliers in free markets can still exhibit monopolistic behavior without being a monopoly.

I would think Apple has a monopoly either in selling iOS apps to consumers or, if you argue you don’t buy from Apple (but I don’t think that would hold under EU consumer law) in providing services to sell iOS apps to consumers.

A ruling on this might be tricky, though. It would have to argue that “iOS apps” are a separate market, that this is detrimental to consumers, and would have to phrase things in a way that there’s no collateral damage.

For example (possibly a very bad one; I’m not an expert in any law), theaters and music festivals typically sell their own tickets, passing on part of their revenues to performers. If, as is often the case, their show is unique, that might be called a ‘monopoly’ somewhat similar to what Apple does (sell iOS apps, passing on part of the revenues). They would have to find an argument as to why one thing is allowed while the other isn’t, and it can’t be “because we feel it’s different” or “because we don’t like Apple”.

Apple advocates always point to Apple capturing the vast majority of the profits in the mobile market but when discussing antitrust issues it's only units sold that matters. You can't have it both ways.

What tablets are out there that make Apple a minority in the tablet world?

Not in Switzerland as far as I know, they have very slightly over 50% apparently.

It is irrefutable that Android is the dominant player in mobile[0]. It isn't even close. Android is near to a legitimate worldwide monopoly while Apple is a bit minority player in comparison. These are just facts.

[0]: https://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/iphone/iphone-vs-android-...