It becomes more complicated because Fortnite is not iOS , nor apple. In the end the decision will be made over anticompetitive tactics. Because mobile marketplaces are a closed oligopoly, they 'll establish customer rights.
If Apple had 99% market share ( it is currently edging close to 70% in US, 75% of U.S. App Store revenues, and over 80% of time spent on the mobile internet ), and you have a choice of of using Android, would that 1% even count as a choice? In that case monopoly would not exist in any market.
It is about Market power ( and imbalance )
"That wouldn’t eliminate the market power Apple has here, but it would certainly diminish it ... it would not be much of a solution at all."
I thought this sentence sums it up pretty well. Apple has far too much power and we have plenty of evidence of email shown in court they are abusing it.
I find it interesting that Apple is being accused of such anti-consumer behaviours while simultaneously demonstrating the success of their overall product strategy in the truly free and open marketplace of smartphone sales. There are dozens of very strong competitors, most with a much wider spectrum of options and price points than Apple offers.
There is a different between Sales Unit Market Share, and actual usage market share.
As long as Apple user dont migrate to Android, and the total smartphone user in US being the constant ( most adult already got a smartphone ). Even if Apple sold zero smartphone in a whole year. They will still have the same market shares.
With most Android devices, you can unlock the bootloader and replace the Rom, root the device for administrator style access, debloat and remove system components, generally modify the hardware as you see fit.
With all Android devices that aren't managed (read: business device), you can sideload a third party app store without the need to use system exploits to 'jailbreak.'
Neither can be done on iOS. Attempting to modify the system or sideload apps on iOS requires using exploits that are security flaws and will likely be patched out in a future OS update.
If you already have an iDevice and can't replace it, you basically don't have any choice.
Is an average Android user actually going to do any of that?
It really doesn't matter if the average Android user will do it.
What matters is that you have the option to do so.
That must be why there isn't a large jailbreaking community behind iOS.
Or why there hasn't been a lawsuit over...
An educated consumer would know that before they bought the phone. It’s never been possible to legally side load apps on iOS (well outside of your own) so it’s not unreasonable that anyone who’s bought an iPhone would expect to have that functionality. It was never taken away from them. They bought into that walled garden, whether they knew it or not.
It's entirely unreasonable to expect the average person to read up and become an expert on everything that they purchase. This is the whole reason consumer protection laws exist.
I’d argue it is the responsibility of the consumer to know if their food has allergens. It’s convenient for consumers to have the declarations on packaged products, but that doesn’t stop an allergic person from being responsible for grabbing a street bite that ends up having nuts in it.
The airbag example is a contractual obligation with a a warranted product.
The light bulb cartel example is totally unrelated and throwing it in the mix only adds a sinister tone to the original topic. If you were talking about their salary collusion it’d be relevant. But it has no relation to iOS not allowing side loading.
I’m not saying a consumer need be an expert in everything. But expecting that a product has functionality that’s never been advertised or suggested is unreasonable.
"Android device users face switching costs when switching to Apple devices, such as losing their apps, data and contacts, and having to learn how to use a new operating system"
But the other way around.