However, not all hardware is created by them. You're free to purchase a different phone, and you can even make the number of app stores supported a primary buying decision.
Why would someone advance the state of the art in any device if the immediate result is attacks for the new device being a "monopoly" within the scope of the new device or improvements?
I can't see why you would be unable to advance the state of the art if you don't block (thus allow) everyone from building on your platform.
All devices made with purpose in-mind and only allow the manufacturer's firmware to be installed and are not "open platforms". In the case of smart TVs and many game consoles, you have a direct comparison to phones as they have a single app store with no competitors allowed on their platform.
Should all of these single purpose decives have to bare the burden and cost of opening up their platform for competitors too?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly
> exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action > exclusive possession or control
You seem to be under the impression that only one type of monopoly exists (IE: Android exists so Apple doesn't have a monopoly).
But do you realize that that's no the only thing that can be monopolized?
So again... on the iPhone platform? who has "exclusive possession or control" over apps on the iPhone?