Every manufacturer controls their own supply chain, and can choose what to put in or take out of their own product. And everyone makes a choice when they purch

Every manufacturer controls their own supply chain, and can choose what to put in or take out of their own product. And everyone makes a choice when they purchase a product— you could say invest in a product—if they want to buy into that. Of course it costs money to buy something different. The salient point is that there is a obvious and competitive choice before you buy, that Apple does nothing to restrict you from making that choice before you buy, and that you can switch if you feel like it, which makes it not a monopoly. Monopoly is not defined as the lack of compatibility between two competing products. Monopoly is also not defined as having a closed ecosystem. I think it’s fair to argue if you think it should be illegal to have closed ecosystems. Personally I strongly disagree because there are clear trade-offs involved and the market should be able to decide if it wants a closed ecosystem product offering from Vendor A or an open ecosystem offering from Vendor B. The problem with a closed ecosystem is when it is combined with a monopolistic market. In this discussion I believed the two points have become conflated, but while Apple certainly has a walled garden, there is compelling evidence the smartphone market is highly competitive.