Apple is far from being a monopoly in the phone space (even in the much smaller smartphone space where RIMM rules) yet and you can easily switch phones and do whatever you want.
IANAL, but this was how post-Bork antitrust law was described to me.
When a small company engages in lock-in/anti-competitive practices, you can't really make the argument that consumers are being hurt, because if that were true, they would just buy the competitor's product. The iPhone, for instance, exists in a smartphone market with multiple players (Blackberry, HTC, Palm, etc), and if consumers decide that Apple has gone too far, they'll simply buy a different phone next time. But if a company had a monopoly (which MSFT had in operating systems during the late 90s), there are no real options for consumers. The company could partake in anti-consumer activities without fear of market retribution. In those cases, the courts usually intervene to ensure consumer protection.
I'm a huge Apple fan, and I'm extremely sorry to see them turning out to act more like douchebags each day.
Nonsense. Apple does nothing to prevent the Palm Pre from syncing with an iTunes library. They only prevent the Palm Pre from using iTunes to do so.
The app store is like a giant department store. If I make a widget I can't walk in to wal-mart and demand that they put it on the shelves. Even if the pornulator3000(tm) would fly off the shelves and make both wal-mart and I a ton of cash they are still under no obligation to stock my product if they think it will hurt their reputation or standing in the community (e.g. turn them into "the store where you go to get that wink-wink nudge-nudge massage device...")
If Apple had a monopoly position they would be the _only_ store in town. That is clearly not the case. They may be the hottest, most-hyped store in town but consumers clearly have other choices.
All of this is censorship. What it isn't is a violation of anyone's legal rights to freedom of expression.
I don't think Microsoft bundling software with Windows is inappropriate, within reason. Where the monopoly and anti-trust concerns for me come in is their agreements with PC manufacturers that penalizes them for providing alternative operating systems.
Yeah, definitely — I don't necessarily think Microsoft did do anything not OK in that respect.
Then why is it not OK for Microsoft to try to force you to use a particular web-browser by pre-installing it with Windows and making it difficult to install others?