> “Ohh it’s not a monopoly because your clients could just carry around a lenovo running linux instead of a mobile phone”. How is this argument still passing the bar?

This explains that they are a duopoly, not a monopoly. However I do agree they are both a monopoly:

You're making a 10$ app targeting Californian 10-20 yos. They have 95% Apple devices (I don't know, I'm completely spitballing, but you get the idea.). You develop the Apple app, everything is going good, you have 1M users, Apple decides to cut you off on a whim (not saying they are doing it, but they are allowed to since they are legally not a monopoly). What does this "free competition between Apple and Android" is going to do to you? Re-target your game to SWE who are more likely to have Androids?

The Unity ruling seem to be clear to me that that the US law doesn't consider it a monopoly, and I acknowledge that. I can understand where this comes from. But it feels like laws need to be updated to take this new kind of situation (a local per-person monopoly impacting multiple distinct markets) into consideration.