Not OC but exactly. They have a "monopoly" on the comments by their HN handle so they're responsible for what's written from that handle.

The same way Apple holds a monopoly on an ecosystem they created so they are responsible for what's happening there.

the app store is the monopoly. afaik there's no other way to get apps on your apple device.

You are free to buy a non-Apple phone... because Apple does not have a monopoly.

No.

This is a disingenuous line of reasoning.

Once you buy a phone you are locked into using a specific marketplace, where Apple has complete control.

This doesn't need to occur. An open marketplace or multiple marketplaces could be possible.

For all intents and purposes, Apple does have a monopoly.

So how do you get an app onto the iphone if they don't have a monopoly on apps on their phones? What other store can I use to get apps on a iPhone?

You don't seem to understand what a monopoly is. You can't arbitrarily put an app onto their hardware because they built it so you couldn't.

However, not all hardware is created by them. You're free to purchase a different phone, and you can even make the number of app stores supported a primary buying decision.

It isn't Apple's hardware. It's your hardware. You bought it.

This kind of reasoning is perfect if you want to halt all future innovation.

Why would someone advance the state of the art in any device if the immediate result is attacks for the new device being a "monopoly" within the scope of the new device or improvements?

The legal term is abuse of a dominant market position, which does not only apply to pure monopolies ...

What? Aren't AMD, ARM, and Intel advancing the state of the art of CPUs because they have open platforms, and have no monopoly or gatekeeper position on what software can run on their platform?

I can't see why you would be unable to advance the state of the art if you don't block (thus allow) everyone from building on your platform.

What about fridges, toasters, smart TVs, playstations, watches, etc.

All devices made with purpose in-mind and only allow the manufacturer's firmware to be installed and are not "open platforms". In the case of smart TVs and many game consoles, you have a direct comparison to phones as they have a single app store with no competitors allowed on their platform.

Should all of these single purpose decives have to bare the burden and cost of opening up their platform for competitors too?

In one sentence you say "direct comparison," and in the next you contradict yourself by using the words "single purpose devices." A phone is a general computing device. A smart refrigerator is not. Is there even an app store on a smart fridge which contains third party apps?

It seems YOU don't understand what monopoly means.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly

> exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action > exclusive possession or control

You seem to be under the impression that only one type of monopoly exists (IE: Android exists so Apple doesn't have a monopoly).

But do you realize that that's no the only thing that can be monopolized?

So again... on the iPhone platform? who has "exclusive possession or control" over apps on the iPhone?

Whether or not it is a monopoly is a red herring, since being a monopoly is not illegal. Abusing a dominant position in a marketplace is. Apple has dominance in the Apple app marketplace, which they could theoretically abuse by discriminating against competitors. Thus, it is in their interest to be transparent about how they're managing their app store.