"Exactly! I would tell those people to use another telephone, not sue Bell Systems to change their phone network"

"Exactly! I would tell those people to find another supplier, not sue Standard Oil to change their business tactics"

"Exactly! I would tell those people to ride a different rail, not sue Pacific Railway Co. to change their train routes"

- Monopoly apologism, through the centuries

With only difference being that you can buy non-apple device with different features, while Bell was pretty much the only option people had.

And Apple is the only option businesses have. Without an iPhone app most online businesses are dead in the water.

You could buy non-Bell phones and even connect them to a functioning telephone network. The problem (and incentive for antitrust action) was Bell's business of charging users to connect to their proprietary and all-encompassing network. They created a situation where the only way to compete was to acquiesce with Bell's exploitative terms.

It's not illegal to be a monopoly, it's illegal to abuse monopoly power.

> You could buy non-Bell phones and even connect them to a functioning telephone network.

First, that is simply a lie. Until the Carterfone decision it was, in fact, illegal to attach a non-Bell phone to the network.

Second, Apple has a smaller market share (especially in Europe!) than Android, so it is very hard to see how someone could, in good faith, argue that Apple is a monopoly.

Third, Apple is doing nothing to prevent you from buying an Android phone. If you don't like the walled garden, the gate is not locked. You can simply leave.

> Until the Carterfone decision it was, in fact, illegal to attach a non-Bell phone to the network.

...and the Carterfone decision was long overdue. The entire antitrust legislation against Ma Bell was protracted a half century because, much like Apple, they had armies of lobbyists stationed around the nation. Suffice to say we made the right call on Carterfone, and Bell made the wrong decision by resenting it.

> so it is very hard to see how someone could, in good faith, argue that Apple is a monopoly.

A natural monopoly, maybe. But the Wabash Case demonstrates that a privately-owned common carrier platform can be subject to antitrust law without owning the majority of the rail. The European DMA explicitly goes the extra mile to implicate Apple not as a monopoly, but as a "gatekeeper" with specific fair-play obligations. To them, it wouldn't even matter anyways.

> Apple is doing nothing to prevent you from buying an Android phone.

Ah, the "innovation" clause. This isn't about Android, because Android phones don't run Apple software. Apple has deliberately designed their ecosystem to funnel back into one exploitative internal market that they are solely responsible for. Android phones are an alternative, but irrelevant in a conversation about App Store alternatives.