[heavyset_go]

Via the FTC[0]:

> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power.

[0] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...

[mvn9]

That's the law. That's how forcing a second app store could be possible. But first of all, I don't think that it should be used to force Apple's hands. If they want to operate the app store the way they do, they should be able to do so. Long-term, they will kill their position because being abusive creates an opportunity for another player.

Secondly, I don't believe that the law will be applied. There are plenty of big companies that are in that position. First of all google with their operating system, browser, search-engine, ad network combo and Microsoft with their office suit. If you look at the quality of MS Teams, you know that its popularity is not by free choice.

If a second app store is introduced by that law, there would be plenty of follow-ups. I doubt that killing those cash-cows will happen when there is an economic war against China. Opening up those markets would allow Chinese companies to take those positions.