[nodamage]

You don't get to arbitrarily redefine the market until you hit your desired threshold either. The courts will typically consider whether the consumer has reasonable access to alternatives to your product. Which in the case of Apple, there definitely are.

[Dahoon]

> whether the consumer has reasonable access to alternatives

No, because in this case the alternative is not another phone but another app store.

[nodamage]

The apps available are part of the purchasing decision of which phone to buy, just like which games are available are part of the purchasing decision of which console to buy. You don't get to buy an Xbox and then demand to be able to play Mario Kart on it.

[snowron6]

This isn't a valid analogy. A more appropriate one would be if Nintendo wanted to release Mario kart on the Xbox but Microsoft refused to allow them unless Nintendo gave them 30% of the revenue from it.

[nodamage]

You realize that's actually the case, right? If Nintendo wanted to publish Mario Kart on the Xbox they would have to sign a publisher agreement with Microsoft and pay a royalty for every copy of Mario Kart sold on the Xbox.

[ghostwriter]

Why do you think that I as consumer need another app store? What if I hate app stores and I don't want to download your weekly editions of "bug fixes and performance improvements" and just want a working mobile-friendly web app? Telegram is pretty much the same whether it's a native app or a web app to me.