> Until the Carterfone decision it was, in fact, illegal to attach a non-Bell phone to the network.
...and the Carterfone decision was long overdue. The entire antitrust legislation against Ma Bell was protracted a half century because, much like Apple, they had armies of lobbyists stationed around the nation. Suffice to say we made the right call on Carterfone, and Bell made the wrong decision by resenting it.
> so it is very hard to see how someone could, in good faith, argue that Apple is a monopoly.
A natural monopoly, maybe. But the Wabash Case demonstrates that a privately-owned common carrier platform can be subject to antitrust law without owning the majority of the rail. The European DMA explicitly goes the extra mile to implicate Apple not as a monopoly, but as a "gatekeeper" with specific fair-play obligations. To them, it wouldn't even matter anyways.
> Apple is doing nothing to prevent you from buying an Android phone.
Ah, the "innovation" clause. This isn't about Android, because Android phones don't run Apple software. Apple has deliberately designed their ecosystem to funnel back into one exploitative internal market that they are solely responsible for. Android phones are an alternative, but irrelevant in a conversation about App Store alternatives.