> Nobody is forced to choose iOS.

Oh, I didn't know one can install other OS on iPhones.

Same reasoning could be applied years ago: Nobody forces users to use Windows.

The comparison to Windows is laughable. IOS market share is less than 33%.

>Oh, I didn't know one can install other OS on iPhones.

Why does this matter? By choosing an iPhone you choose iOS.

A monopoly is not the same thing as a lack of choice.

No matter how you’d like to word it, Apple is not in a monopoly position in the mobile OS market.

You are over-relying on a dictionary definition of monopoly that runs counter to the legal standard.

Think "anti-trust" rather than "monopoly," if that helps.

There's no "anti-trust" for your own marketplace within your own devices.

The very "trust" in anti-trust is about companies in the "top-level" marketplace (the general market/economy). Not about what they can build for their own platforms, in the same way it's ok for Disneyland to give you Disney money...

I don't think your first statement is actually true. Historically, the US has found that companies that act in a way to favor themselves over competitors is a problem. Microsoft bundling its own web browser at the expense of Netscape, to name one semi-relevant example.

So Spotify claims that Apple favors Apple Music over Spotify in an anti-competitive way, and that they control 100% of "the iOS market," making such favor relevant.

Apple's argument will be basically the one you make: "our playground, our rules," and that they have made APIs available for Spotify to do all of the things Apple Music does. Which is true, but only very, very, very recently. Apple hopes that will reduce Spotify's argument to a monetary squabble over the 30/15% share. And that might work.

But it's not nothing, and it's entirely possible for a company to exercise in anti-competitive behavior in their own marketplace, running afoul of anti-trust laws.

> There's no "anti-trust" for your own marketplace within your own devices.

There certainly is in European law.

> There's no "anti-trust" for your own marketplace within your own devices.

Nope, it is not Apples device, it is a device of the user. Apple just produces them, users should have ability to use the devices as they see fit.

They do have the ability to buy which devices they see fit. That is the step that everyone neglects when making the above point. =)

So, you think that I can't use iPhone as a hammer, because I can do that with a Samsung? :)

Sorry, few countries agree with the claim I made - by investigating the lack of ability to have different app stores on iPhone, usually rights of the users triumph rights of the producer (at least in Europe, US is a different beast).

>Apple just produces them, users should have ability to use the devices as they see fit.

They have the ability to buy the device they see fit (Apple, Google, Samsung, whatever) -- they don't have the right to dictate other terms to individual brands.

The ability to dictate to the maker of the device how it shall be and who it should do business with and allow on its platform is not part of anti-trust law...

Could you maybe explain how apple/iOS fits the legal standard of a monopoly?

Apple is certainly engaging in anti-competitive activity, along with Google, as it is viewed through the lens of US antitrust legislation and case law. Your personal definition of monopoly is irrelevant here.

>Apple is certainly engaging in anti-competitive activity, along with Google, as it is viewed through the lens of US antitrust legislation and case law. Your

Not in anything that has to do with its app stores...