Fortune was talking about it almost 10 years ago.

https://macdailynews.com/2011/07/05/how-apple-became-a-monop...

Of course they’ve been accused in the Supreme Court of being a monopsonist with regard to the App Store, but that’s a separate discussion.

(Update: regrettably my economic theory is weak, so while I think it makes sense to apply the term, after more reading I can't argue the case with a reasonable level of conviction.

Certainly there should be some way to describe a buyer who locks up a supply of components to the exclusion of competitors, as Apple has done on multiple occasions dating at least to the original iPod hard drives.)

See the box at the top of article showing difference between monopoly, monopsony, oligopoly, oligopsony.

A monopsony would mean the buyer gets to dictate all the terms, and the seller has to sell at very low price. In this case, TSMC has something very valuable, and Apple is paying a considerable amount (presumably, I haven’t seen real numbers) to the seller to make sure no one else gets it.

In fact, TSMC is a monopoly, the only seller of a much sought after product.