It's not technically a monopoly, but in so far as it might become one, it is someone else's responsibility to tweet and complain about it.
And there is a difference in scale between Apple's control and everyone else's.
And there is a difference in scale between Apple's control and everyone else's.
There's a reason Google pays Apple so 15 billion pa for search defaults. Adwords would be deeply hurt if Apple decided to withhold its users.
Dominant market share is not the same thing as a monopoly, because the existence of competitive alternatives is a check on the behavior of the market leader. Also, it is tough to ignore the fact that any customer can buy a Samsung phone with largely the same capabilities at a similar price point to the iPhone.
Not all monopolies are unlawful in the US. There is a need to prove that practices are anticompetitive, such as by unfair pricing or exclusive dealing. If Apple is expected to curate and support an App Store with non-malicious apps and reviews thereof, used on a platform for which they provide an ecosystem of developer tools, they are entitled to charge a fee for that.
What is the technicality? It's certainly a monopoly in layman's terms.
Is the technicality monopsony? IE, the fact that Spotify have more power over artists than consumers? Is it the fact that there are other streaming services in existence, and spotify has <100%.
I feel like people can specify "textbook-monopoly," if they need to use a hyper-strict definition of one kind or another. For regular conversation, the common definition of the term works fine.