Release their own phone? Really? That is not really better then apple, is it?
In contrast, Apple flat out doesn't allow anyone else to sell their hardware or software. Now that's a monopoly.
There was once a similar thing with movie studios and movie theaters. The Hollywood anti-trust case of 1948: https://w.wiki/AWmk (HN eats the period at the end of regular links)
Another example is the car dealership system, forcing car manufacturers to sell to dealerships for them to sell.
Maybe you can help me fill in the gaps as to how this is a monopoly. Now depending on where you go for a definition of a monopoly, you might find subtly different definitions. But to quote Investopedia:
> A monopoly is characterized by a single company supplying a good or service, a lack of competition within the market, and no similar substitutes for the product being sold.
Apple's iPhone is produced by a single company, you're right. But there is competition within the market thanks to Android, and other failed attempts at competition like Blackberry and the Windows phones.
Furthermore, Apple might "stop" other competition from springing up by virtue of just being a better offering, but I don't believe anyone is quite literally halting someone from attempting to start a competing phone OS and hardware business. If the only choices are Android vs iOS, and the slew of Android phone manufacturers vs Apple, should Apple be held accountable for nobody making better offerings than what already exists? In my opinion, that answer is only "yes" if you can prove they're doing anything in back alleys to cut prospective competitors off at the knees, which as far as I know, doesn't happen. Maybe you can point me to where and how they do, though.
Android wasn't officially released at that time. What was Apple then? What if Android hadn't worked out?
If you define the App Store as a component of the phone (which Microsoft tried to do and failed with their OS and Internet Explorer) then they’re fine.