The EU fined Microsoft six hundred million dollars just for including Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player in Windows by default. Apple's behavior is much worse than that.
Microsoft then had a monopoly on desktop OSes at the time, at 95+ (close to 97%, in fact).
Apple has a paltry sub-50% share of mobile OSes.
The "But they have 100% share on their own products" is not an argument, as far as the law is concerned, as monopolies are not judged this way. That's the same reason why you can't legally force McDonalds to also sell Burger King burgers, or GAP to sell Banana Republic clothes...
And even MS monopoly position wasn't the issue (having a monopoly naturally is not illegal). The issue was it used its monopoly position to threaten and bribe OEMs to not work with competitors.
Someone could sell cars for $5K and have 99% of the car market in a small city of 1000 people, while another one sells a single car for 100M and has 20 times the other's revenue. It's still the cheap car guy that has the monopoly.
It's not relevant for monopoly law and whether it's a monopoly, which is what's discussed here...
Antitrust is about power, and Apple has a lot of it.
We don't get to pick our "complete" definition we prefer because "we deserve free money/mobile platform access". There's an actual, legal, one...
>Antitrust is about power, and Apple has a lot of it.
Only in the same sense that McDonalds has power not to sell Burger King burgers, and a shop owner has owner to sell whatever the duck they want.
Not power related to monopoly over the mobile market or the app market in general.
Monopolies aren't inherently illegal. See e.g., patents and copyrights, which are legally granted or protected monopolies.
What is illegal is anti-competitive practices. This doesn't require a dominant or even majority market position--authorities in the US and EU have gone after companies with relatively small market shares that engaged in anti competitive actions (though they haven't done so in many years).
That's not what monopoly means legally.
>Monopolies aren't inherently illegal
That's true, but a vendor controlling their own store is not a monopoly.
Monopoly is when the vendor has 100% of the overall market...
From the DOJ guidance on antitrust law (https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-...)
Regarding the first element, it is "settled law" that the offense of monopolization requires "the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market."(5) As discussed in chapter 2, monopoly power means substantial market power that is durable rather than fleeting--market power being the ability to raise prices profitability above those that would be charged in a competitive market.(6)
Microsoft also had a court order to comply with that they forgot about in Windows 7. https://www.engadget.com/2013/03/06/microsoft-european-commi...
Microsoft had a dominant market position, and anti-competitively leveraged that market position in operating systems to muscle its way into the internet browser market.