Except Apple/iOS doesn't have the majority market share as MS did. (not that I don't despise this, just stating).
It is over .25 which means the government will scrutinize it.
The difference with the App Store (full disclosure: I don't think there's anti-trust issues here) is that it's THE ONLY place to buy apps for iOS. There's no place to get a substitute (HTML isn't competitive).
The case against the app store is far more compelling in the one against the iTunes Music Store.
Well what makes the case compelling to the original parent point is not exclusive access but market share. Apple's iPod (hardware players) and iTunes Store (digital music store) had a dominant 70%+ USA market share for most of the past decade. In comparison the iPhone has been between 40%-50% USA market share for the past 5 years (the iPad though has 60%-70%+ market share).
What makes a case compelling for Anti-trust issues though is not market share per se but ABUSE of that market share. A compelling case can be made that Apple is using their market share to muscle in from the digital music downloads business to the digital music streaming business (preferential links between iTunes and Apple Music etc) with unfair tactics against Spotify and other competitors (Rdio for one has already been driven out of business)
A better analogy would be if Microsoft opened an app store on the XBox (which they have/do) and then blocked Sony from selling apps there, or charged Sony a premium rate.
Microsoft has a store for the Xbox, and they decide what they sell on that store. If Sony submits a game for the Xbox store Microsoft can reject it without giving them any reason. And it is perfectly legal.
In Amazon's app store the developers don't even get to set their own prices.
Microsoft did far less and still got hit with anti-trust on Windows just for bundling IE. Now we have app stores which hold monopolies on their platform and restrict competition yet further for the consumer's detriment.
As to what should be allowed and disallowed, companies should hold their own services and products to the same standard as their competitor's services and products. So if you're going to disallow a Sony branded music streaming service then you also have to disallow a Microsoft branded music streaming service, otherwise you're using your monopolistic position abusively.
Microsoft was found guilty of abusing its position because it had a monopoly on the entire PC OS market. They didn't, and don't have a monopoly on the Windows market because there is no such thing.
And Apple has a monopoly on the entire Apple app store market.
> You are discussing competition law, because you have redefined the market.
Law is expansive. When competition laws were written several securities didn't really exist, but the law expanded to encompass them. There's no specific reason why the law cannot expand into protecting consumers from monopolies within an artificially created digital marketplace.
Ultimately competition law exists as a concept to protect consumers, it is clear as day that Apple is abusing its monopolistic control of its app store in a way that hurts consumers. Even if existing law wasn't able to expand to encompass that situation, new law could and should.
PS - I love the people who turn up late and downvote every comment on one side of a discussion.
Which Apple is not doing.
That wouldn't prove either way whether Apple is being mean to Spotify. Kind of a moot point.