This is the most entitled, "first world" problem, I've ever heard of.
Sure you can (not have one). The majority (60%+) of the population in the USA manages just fine without one. 90% in some Western European countries...
Pro tip: you don't need an Apple Watch either.
Pro tip 2: you might want to look up the definition of "need" and "lying".
Actual protip: get out of your tech bubble for two seconds and talk to some real business owners.
In this case, an argument which amounts to:
"People need to have an iPhone because some business owners feel they need it to project success, thus Apple has a monopoly on something essential"
is so random it can't be even be called wrong.
Whether some "business owners" feel they need an iPhone to "project success" doesn't mean anything, and is an absolutely moot point as to whether Apple is a monopoly, or even as to whether the iPhone is an essential good, or whatever else you had in mind.
Apple's management of their platform is not unique, is not meaningfully different from their competitors, and not meaningfully different from the management of similar stores in different industries. Even assuming they actually have built a strong enough brand that people are judged for having a competing product, I fail to see how requiring changes to the App Store solves that problem.
Infact, a judge might see it as a counter argument. If prestige is the reason people buy Apple then almost by definition there must be alternatives.