Yes, fighting a monopoly is often a losing proposition. This is already well-known. Ask Netscape. Does the fact that Apple's appeal comes from its monopoly position somehow make its actions less of a shakedown?
You might be confusing it with the fact that installed base of Android is now equal to iOS on smartphones. (It's not yet caught up with iOS across phones, pods and pads)
On the other hand, I think Android has already earned its place as the next Windows, which I'm glad of, because it's open source which avoids the possibility of it being abused too much.
But monopolies are about power rather than simple numbers. One good test would be if Apple can single-handedly dictate a price rise across the industry, which is one possible outcome of this latest announcement. Though, I actually think the interlocking demands are specifically intended to remove certain competitors from iOS without explicitly naming and kicking them out, much like they blocked Flash apps via over-broad limitations on programming language choice.
However, your comment, "How many times do we need to see ignorant people lured into these roach motels before we as an industry or a society do something about it?" stuck out. From my perspective, the fallacy there is that we as a society exist as something more than a collection of individuals. I read a very interesting article today about how Darwin might actually be a better economic father, as opposed to Adam Smith. The reasoning was that Darwin's theory explains self-interest outside of the context of society; that individuals act in their best interests which may or may not benefit society.
Perhaps our differences are down to our backgrounds. Europe, as a whole, tends to look at the societal unit, whereas Americans tend to look at the individual level, where societal consequences are emergent behavior.
You know who Apple doesn't resemble? Sun. Sun let everyone besides themselves get rich off of Java, and look where they are today.
And, monopoly, what? Having the best product doesn't make you a monopoly.
Regarding your second paragraph: I agree with you. The Mac is the best personal computing platform, yet it is not a monopoly. But having a monopoly in the mobile app market does give Apple a monopoly.
They don't. Doesn't Android actually have more apps in their app store? It really is what the parent said: the Apple market place is just better, it's not any kind of monopoly.
Do you even know what a monopoly is? Because based off your comment I don't think you do.
"In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
So tell me what product does Apple have a monopoly on? Laptops? No. Cell phones? No. Mp3 players? No. App store? No: https://market.android.com/
There are alternatives to Apple, you just don't like them.