[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.