I'm not so sure. The FTC for example lists a lot of possibilities, and it states monopoly is used as a convenient shorthand but what actually matters is:

"Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors."

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...

As to your point, don't confuse the market of phone devices with the market for apps. If I, as a developer, want to sell my apps what is my choice? The only real choice is Android or iOS.

https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/

According to this iOS had two thirds of total sales. I'm probably going to want to develop for that, but oops, I only have one app store choice.

Android phones (the OS) do allow for multiple markets on the phone, as well as side-loading (which is how the markets the phone's manufacturer or reseller don't install can be added).

Most android phones are either in the good area or in the gray zone of the line that shouldn't be crossed. It's difficult to instruct a user on how to add a third party store, and that has much to do with both this almost always being a bad idea as well as customizations on the devices that might make the instructions not the same for all of them.

I also wonder if android applications have need to install as root, or if the system might have a stub that handles this but then isolates the privilege level by classifying applications as individual users / cgroups.

Network effects are a real thing. You could switch to the Ubuntu OS if you wanted to, but there’s no developer ecosystem to provide the apps you use daily

Except that modulo very specialized software, those apps exist or they are consumable as web apps from nearly any OS.

Except that there actually is software for the things you do every day on Ubuntu (and Linux in general).

The network effect is the problem here. There's no Linux app that lets me connect to my network of friends and family using the Facetime protocol, which they are all on. Oh I can video chat, for sure, with the nobody else I know who is willing to migrate to a new chat software.

I'm not aware of any non-Apple facetime clients. Are your friends and family all locked in to Apple just because nobody wants to try a different chat app? I know plenty of people who don't have any facetime client whatsoever because they don't have any Apple products whatsoever. I suggest that "nobody else you know" wants to migrate to new chat software because nobody's asking them to.

Nextcloud, Matrix, Discord, Signal, Telegram, Skype, Zoom, hell even Pidgin. These are all competitors to Apple's Facetime -- they all have voice and/or video chat on Linux, Windows, Mac, Android, iOS.

Here, let me help you start the conversation that way:

> You: Hey mom/dad/friend/acquaintance/boss, I'm going to use a different program to talk to people who don't have an iPhone. Can you install it and talk to me on it for a bit and test it?

> Mom/dad/friend/acquaintance/boss: Yeah sure what's the app?

> Another mom/dad/friend/acquaintance/boss: What? No.

I wonder which way the conversation will go?

About a quarter of my circle are elderly people who are literally incapable of installing an app themselves. I might have an extreme case, but this world you live in isn't real. Even the young tech savvy ones would immediately be like, "This isn't magically/obviously better, just Facetime me."

An environment where people are forced to install software doesn’t seem like a better world for elderly people who are incapable of installing an app.

Perhaps they should be allowed to buy an appliance where most of their basic computing needs have great, widely used, secure solutions out of the box.

It's called an iPhone.

That’s a shame, I guess? Ubuntu exists though, so if you want definitive control, you can have it. If you want Brand X commercial software that only runs on Mac, you can have that too. I don’t see why Apple should be required to facilitate both.

such as?

Apple has barely any market power in laptop/desktop. They can do whatever they want there, I don't care, and neither should the DOJ. I also don't think they're meaningfully leveraging their phone market power to increase their computers market power, but maybe I'm missing something ;needing an Apple computer to develop for Apple phones is maybe a concern, but doesn't strike me as rising to the level of anti-trust litigation.

On phones, in the US, they have a dominant position. US Anti-trust doesn't require a absolute monopoly; merely having a dominant position is enough to prohibit anti-competitve behaviors.

So much competition? Which app store do i go to if im not happy with giving apple a 30% cut of my revenue?

I'm honestly surprised how many people come out of the woodwork to defend apple's app store policies.

let's say someone offered you a deal: for a 30% tax, your device would be X% more secure and you'd have Y% fewer troubles with upgrades and dodgy software. Would you take it? I would.

I'm happy to have my house in Apple's gated community because I know every day I'll drive out to Linuxville at the edge of town and work in my shop filled with sharp tools.

That makes no sense. Having more competition does not mean that anything will be less secure.

Like in real life, you could absolutely choose to always go to the one expensive shop you trust rather than a cheap one in a dodgy street.

Wishing for the shop you like to have and use the power to remove the other ones from existence has nothing to do with your own security.

>let's say someone offered you a deal: for a 30% tax, your device would be X% more secure and you'd have Y% fewer troubles with upgrades and dodgy software. Would you take it? I would.

there is no reason you couldn't have this while also having competing app stores. All you would need to do is not install the competing app stores.

People will install the dodgy app store and still blame Apple.

Same way people blamed Microsoft when Bonzi Buddy made their computer barf.

Right now the perception of iPhones is that they work. Soon as people are tricked (and given the $$$ at stake that will happen) into installing malware infested garbage, the platform's rep will take a hit.

Android used to allow apps a lot more freedom, but then android phones turned into ad filled monstrosities with a battery life measured in fractions of a day, and Google had to clamp down.

Also, I wasn't offered a deal. So while you personally think it's a good deal, I'm computer literate enough to not need the help at the expense of my freedom.

The deal is offered when you decide which device you’d like to buy.

Wow. Couldn’t have put it better myself.

Probably the one that's full of fake apps and malware. Or you can write desktop apps and sell them however you'd like.

Your argument is disingenious at best.

> Probably the one that's full of fake apps and malware.

If all other marketplaces are shady then why is that? Is it because Apple has locked out any way for a competing marketplace to afford to protect users? If you know of specific instances of fake apps and malware being distributed on other legitimate marketplaces why don't you name such a marketplace and get it improved?

> Or you can write desktop apps and sell them however you'd like.

Desktop apps target a completely different user-base with different wants and needs. That's like asking people wanting to make and sell cars to consider making toys instead.

> Or you can write desktop apps and sell them however you'd like.

How much longer do you think this will be possible?

Or maybe it will still be possible, somehow.

But not without going through some hard to navigate loops and dire threats to life and limb when you proceed with installing software from somebody who couldn't or wouldn't pay up for the necessary certificates.