While Apple are being increasingly huge dicks with their ecosystem I think you'd be hard-pressed with an antitrust case because Apple does not have a monopoly (or even a majority marketshare) on mobile devices.

> [Merriam-Webster] of, relating to, or being legislation against or opposition to trusts or combinations; specifically: consisting of laws to protect trade and commerce from unlawful restraints and monopolies or unfair business practices.

It doesn't only apply to monopolies but it is a very good tool for dealing with them.

(yes, Twitter does just that, and yes, it's anti-competitive in my book).

Simply not being able to mention "Android" or "Android Wear" or now "Pebble Watch" is ridiculous. If I chose to buy an Android Wear or Pebble Watch, it's because I felt it was a better match for me... I still would have bought an iPhone (since I'm looking for iPhone Apps).

This is exactly what they've done.

I realize that. If you look at the parent, they were making the argument that it's not the same.

Don't they have long history of doing exactly that?

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2104603/metrotwit-vanishes-as...

I think you want to say "anti-competetive", not "antitrust". Antitrust legislation is what is used against anti-competitive companies. But yes, otherwise you are absolutely right: Apple's behaviour is monopolistic and unfair and "vile" is not unjustified.

Microsoft was in a position of arguably less control in the late 90's and got a huge antitrust case brought against them. Apple is somehow getting away with wildly anticompetitive behavior (more broad than just this case) and for some crazy reason we are all supporting it because "that's the way it is!"

When Microsoft was the dominant OS, imagine Windows having a blacklist of applications you can't install because they advertised compatibility with Linux or Mac apps. People would riot. But we accept exactly the same behavior from Apple like it's totally fine.

Apple has nowhere near the market share that Microsoft has back in the 90's and if you don't like this decision you can take your money elsewhere. In the 90's you literally could not. It is a totally different situation.

You actually still could. There were plenty of non-Windows OEMs back then (SGI, Apple, and Sun are examples; all of them built desktops/workstations without Windows installed (instead using IRIX / Mac OS / SunOS/Solaris, respectively)).

In 1995, if you walked into a shop and said "I need a computer" you were shown a range of machines, all running Windows. It was hard to buy a bare machine without Windows unless you built it yourself. Various PC OEMs made noises about offering other OSes (or even creating their own) but Microsoft shut them down with licensing clauses.

The court cases eventually had the desired effect and now OEMs are free to offer Linux and ChromeOS machines as well as Windows. Took a long time though.

Historically this hasn't been a hurdle for litigation. However, the floral language I used isn't only a result of the App Store - it arises from the many instances of this type of behavior. Take the interaction between iTunes and iDevices as another example. Want to use Winamp to manage your music? Tough. Want to get apps from another store? Tough. Want to browse your phone files with your OS native file manager? Tough. Want to develop apps for the device on anything but a Mac? Tough.

Other companies were litigated for merely pre-installing software on their OS (even though alternatives could be installed at a later date). In many cases with Apple alternatives aren't a possibility whatsoever (unless you violate DMCA).

In order to be regulated under Anti-trust, Apple would need to have a monopoly on some market that isn't simply described as "their customers". The closest they came was iPod, but it looks like that hovered around 75%

http://stratechery.com/2010/apple-innovators-dilemma/

So, would probably not fall under anti-trust.