But users already can by an Android or Linux phone instead. It's not like Apple has the monopoly on smartphones.
The problem is that Apple built an artificial monopoly in the distribution of apps by making the App Store the only curator of the platform. People who decided to purchase an iPhone with an iOS license should have the right to use the device to it's full extent (along with being able to fix it themselves if something breaks). If you don't feel safe running apps outside of the App Store, you don't need to!
>>People who decided to purchase an iPhone with an iOS license should have the right to use the device to it's full extent
The US Copyright Office has already made it clear that jailbreaking is legal. That does not imply upon Apple an affirmative obligation to fix a jailbroken phone or create a open/fixable hardware and software platform, or make either of the two easy to accomplish. Only a negative obligation to not interfere with those who take such risks at their own expense.
Especially for general computing devices like a phone (unlike gaming consoles and media like your examples). We already know that Apple doesn't need the App Store for iDevices to be a commercial success, just look at the Mac and macOS.
It's like that, except my house is very big and I'm Apple. Everyone, by their choice in accepting my invitation, have chosen to abide by my rules.
All guests are free to leave any time!
Now, what right does a 3rd party (the gov't) have to come in and crash my party and force me to change some of my rules? Consenting adults chose to be here!
There would first need to be consensus as to what constitutes an artificial monopoly. So far the term has been used so nebulously as to encompass any choice or decision made with a tradeoff or constraint that somehow paid off for at least one but few, if any, others. In other words, "They cheated by holding onto a winning strategy / lottery ticket."
>>General computing devices like a phone (unlike gaming consoles and media like your examples).
I fail to see the distinction. The Nintendo Switch is powered by the same SoC that runs on the Android-powered Nvidia Shield. Just recently, the Switch has been jailbroken to run full Android 10. The PS4, PS5, XB1, XBSX all run on x86-64 AMD chips (the former two on an in-house OpenBSD distro and the latter two on a full Windows 10 kernel). Even older consoles like the PS2 and N64 can run Linux (the former as an official feature and the latter as a recent homebrew development). In short, anything in console space has been a general computer for the last 20 years if not earlier. Constraints are imposed onto the hardware and software of these products as a natural consequence of certain physical limitations or by intentional design of their respective companies. Apple's products are, in general, no different.
>> We already know Apple doesn't need the App Store for iDevices to be a commercial success.
What Apple needs to be a commercial success or not is a choice for Apple to make for itself. Apple chose a particular domain to succeed in and succeeded beyond almost every expectation. Absent fraud, it shouldn't be stopped from monetizing it's winnings any way it chooses just because you think the company has "over-succeeded". That on it's own doesn't make the App Store an "artificial monopoly" any more than it makes Usain Bolt "too good" to be allowed to compete in any more races. All of which leads me to question how exactly you are defining "artificial monopoly". What counts and what doesn't?
No.
You need to watch Epic Games vs. Apple hearing from September 2020. This argument was already rejected by judge. She stated closed platforms (walled gardens) were before Apple's fore decades and are legal types of business. She also told about Nintendo/PlayStation/Xbox same closed stores.