[kj99]

Apple doesn't have a monopoly on software distribution.

If alternative stores equated to better software, then Android would have easily outpaced Apple by now.

The only people who would benefit from forcing Apple to allow alternative stores are the unscrupulous middlemen who would run them.

[smoldesu]

> Apple doesn't have a monopoly on software distribution.

This is just literally wrong, by-definition.

You can claim that Apple's monopoly isn't illegal or harmful, but the monopoly itself is self-evident. You cannot distribute software without Apple; their system is designed with monopolistic capability.

> The only people who would benefit from forcing Apple to allow alternative stores are the unscrupulous middlemen who would run them.

Source? You're inventing hypothetical claims to support your rhetoric.

[nodamage]

> This is just literally wrong, by-definition.

No it's not. There are plenty of ways to distribute software without Apple being involved at all.

Perhaps you meant to argue that Apple has a monopoly on iOS software distribution, but that's not actually what was originally written. It's also highly questionable given that the courts have rejected "iOS software distribution" as a valid antitrust market for the purpose of monopolization claims.

[smoldesu]

I didn't say they had a monopoly on all software distribution. I said that claiming Apple had no monopoly is wrong.

> It's also highly questionable given that the courts have rejected "iOS software distribution" as a valid antitrust market for the purpose of monopolization claims.

Pray tell, in which jurisdictions?

[nodamage]

Under US law the requirements for recognizing single brand aftermarkets are very particular, that’s why Epic failed to prove Apple held a monopoly over iOS software distribution.

[dataflow]

> Apple doesn't have a monopoly on software distribution

It has a monopoly on iPhone software distribution... which is why they can set the fee at 27% without competition...