[sjy]

> I know that anti-trust laws are probably not applicable as Apple does have a dominant position based on total market share

It's an interesting question though, because it depends on which 'market' you're talking about. This is a vexed question in antitrust law [1]. There is some pending litigation in the United States as to whether Apple illegally monopolized the market for iPhone apps [2], but it's been brought by app purchasers rather than the regulator, and Apple has taken the case to the Supreme Court to argue that the purchasers don't have standing to sue.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevant_market

[2]: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/apple-v-pepper/

[DaiPlusPlus]

It would be perverse if the court ordered Apple to modify iOS to support third-party app-stores. I see it as the same situation as video game console licensing: all games for the Xbox, PS and Nintendo must be approved by the platform owner and they take a cut from all sales.

The "happy medium" we have today: where jailbreaking was found to be not illegal, works for as long as we can jailbreak. I note that iOS does now allow sideloaded apps too, though they still must run in the sandbox, but it does mean you can distribute an app that wouldn't be approved for the App Store.

The EU had another workaround: impose a higher import tariff on video game consoles than general-purpose computers. Sony released a Linux kit for the PS2 so they could say the PS2 was a general-purpose computer, not a console. I think it worked initially but because hardly anyone bought the Linux kit (it wasn't sold at retail with the console) the customs people took a look and Sony had to start paying higher tariffs.