I agree with most of the article, but don't really like how it just breezes through this part: [Apple] can leverage its smartphone share into monopoly profits

I agree with most of the article, but don't really like how it just breezes through this part: [Apple] can leverage its smartphone share into monopoly profits on digital goods and services that are on iOS not because iOS is anything special, but because that is the only possible way to reach nearly 50% of the U.S. population. But it is something special precisely because Apple has enforced such strict quality control measures for its apps. It has refused lots of apps because allowing them would damage users' trust of its store. So just having an app show up in the store is a signal of quality. This is precisely why the store can reach 50% of the market. This is significant because without those standards from day one, I don't think Apple would have achieved its reputation as best in class which allowed it to gain the leadership position it has. So its a symbiotic relationship and you can't just focus on one side of the equation. There probably aren't a lot of people who remember the Palm app experience which was way before the App Store. Apps were horribly unreliable and one had to rely on outside reviewers to determine which if any should be installed. Granted technology has changed drastically since then so its not an entirely fair comparison, but still I believe that you can't simply look at the App Store as a provider that could be replicated by anyone in the exact same manner as Apple if only they were allowed to. I do agree that users shouldn't be restricted from visiting other sites from within apps or even download from outside sources if a particular developer chooses to release its apps through an outside distributor.