[chipotle_coyote]

> This is monopoly bundling by definition.

We've been having this debate for the better part of the last decade because whether this constitutes a monopoly really isn't clear as either side insists that it is. There's not much precedent for this specific kind of maybe-monopoly out there, and it's unclear to me whether the semi-precedents I can think of really support the notion that the App Store is a monopoly.

Also, as people have pointed out elsewhere, a monopoly is not in and of itself illegal. European antitrust law focuses on anti-competitive behavior, but American antitrust law focuses on perceived consumer harm. Look at antitrust suits against Apple's iBooks from years ago -- Apple's collusion with publishers was to break Amazon's de facto monopoly on ebooks. Giving pricing control back to publishers would have increased competition, but it would have raised prices for consumers, and that was what the courts cared about.

And this is actually a big thorn in the side of American antitrust action against Apple's app store. We can shout "walled garden" all we want (although I am getting super tired of that phrase, so let's not), but you need to find cases where this harmed consumers, not developers. Developers can line up around the block saying that Apple's policies are destroying their business, but unless America changes our standard of antitrust to be more like Europe's, that simply doesn't matter. Those cases are arguably out there -- I keep coming back to Apple's store policies that force Amazon to release a Kindle app that not only won't let you purchase books but can't even tell you a URL to go to -- but on the whole, this is a relatively high bar.