Uh...
Also, monopoly has a very specific definition. It does not mean "company with large marketshare".
What Apple is doing might be almost legal but it is not right and laws can be written to spell this out for them and others.
Computing should be declared a human right and selling mass produced general purpose computers without allowing anybody to deploy any desired software on that computer should be illegal.
You want an experience with an Apple product that Apple doesn’t provide, whether you agree with it or not. Where do we draw the line? Should we force all vegan restaurants to serve meat? Surely if computing is a human right, then food is as well and thus I’m entitled to the experience I want as a result. Apple would argue, and rightfully so, most of their customers want a walled garden. People don’t want to have to worry about malware, scams, etc. Why should they be deprived of offering this experience when you have plenty of other choices for unconstrained computing.
The scale of any company should invite extra scrutiny from the state. Apple is at a scale where it has massive societal impact, it's not the burger joint down the road.
It would be trivial for Apple to add a toggle allowing users to switch from 'walled garden' mode to something more permissive.
On macOS you can install any software, or from identified developers or from the App Store and I don't see macOS users screaming they can't manage without their walled garden.
Why wouldn't iOS allow any installs from identified developers or from anywhere?
duopoly not monopoly
Also they aren't taking 30% forcibly of every single program that runs on Windows.
The CEOs should get a medal and all the honours for providing society this good platforms then promptly forced to allow separate AppStores on equal footing.