You are over-relying on a dictionary definition of monopoly that runs counter to the legal standard.
Think "anti-trust" rather than "monopoly," if that helps.
Think "anti-trust" rather than "monopoly," if that helps.
The very "trust" in anti-trust is about companies in the "top-level" marketplace (the general market/economy). Not about what they can build for their own platforms, in the same way it's ok for Disneyland to give you Disney money...
Nope, it is not Apples device, it is a device of the user. Apple just produces them, users should have ability to use the devices as they see fit.
Sorry, few countries agree with the claim I made - by investigating the lack of ability to have different app stores on iPhone, usually rights of the users triumph rights of the producer (at least in Europe, US is a different beast).
They have the ability to buy the device they see fit (Apple, Google, Samsung, whatever) -- they don't have the right to dictate other terms to individual brands.
The ability to dictate to the maker of the device how it shall be and who it should do business with and allow on its platform is not part of anti-trust law...
So Spotify claims that Apple favors Apple Music over Spotify in an anti-competitive way, and that they control 100% of "the iOS market," making such favor relevant.
Apple's argument will be basically the one you make: "our playground, our rules," and that they have made APIs available for Spotify to do all of the things Apple Music does. Which is true, but only very, very, very recently. Apple hopes that will reduce Spotify's argument to a monetary squabble over the 30/15% share. And that might work.
But it's not nothing, and it's entirely possible for a company to exercise in anti-competitive behavior in their own marketplace, running afoul of anti-trust laws.
There certainly is in European law.