In Japan you can be investigated by Antitrust and there's no proper definition of monopoly there. The only criteria is "superior bargaining position" which anyone can agree Apple does have today - https://globalcompetitionreview.com/jurisdiction/1006143/jap...

> For Party A to have superior bargaining position over the other party (Party B), Party A does not need to have a market-dominant position nor an absolutely dominant bargaining position equivalent thereto, but only needs to have a relatively superior bargaining position as compared to the other transacting party. When Party A has superior bargaining position over Party B, who is a transaction counterpart, it means such a case where if Party A makes a request, etc, that is substantially disadvantageous for Party B, Party B would be unable to avoid accepting such a request, etc, on the grounds that Party B has difficulty in continuing the transaction with Party A and thereby Party B’s business management would be substantially impeded.

First of all it would only apply within Japan law, it would need to take into account how Apple market practices relate to other players on the Japanese market and only the opinion of a judge actually matters.

Secondly, it doesn't scale, because Android and Windows own the worldwide market share of consumer platforms.