[summerlight]

The trouble here is the definition of "market". Apple's ecosystem (which Apple has an absolute control on) doesn't seem to be very safe from being defined as a sole market since there's no viable substitute to the app store for Apple users.

For instance, even if Apple decides to increase the app store fee to 50% so its app's prices as well, still consumers don't have much choice since buying a new phone is typically more expensive by order of magnitude than buying an app. This is also a part of Spotify's claim as well and Apple is trying to defend itself for this time unlike Apple v. Pepper.

[nihonde]

You can’t define Apple’s market as iOS customers unless there are no alternatives to iOS, which there most certainly are.

[summerlight]

I already have explained; there's no alternative to iOS for apple mobile devices unless you're willing to pay more than $500 for an equivalent level of android device. If Apple allows Android to be installed to Apple devices, then things can be different though.

[xvector]

This is true with any industry. There is no alternative from Honda unless you are willing to spend <car-price> on another car.

[threeseed]

Same applies to PlayStation, XBox, Switch, FitBit, Tesla, Thermomix etc.

Pretty much the standard.

[sjwright]

In fact software monopolies on hardware isn't pretty much the standard, it's a universal reality in just about all consumer products except one—the personal computer. And even then it's exceedingly rare for a consumer to deviate from the shipped software.

[nihonde]

Are you really going to persist in claiming that Apple has a monopoly on its own products? If so, your grasp of competition rules is fatally flawed.