> The cost of switching phone platforms is massive compared to the app market. Phones can cost over $1000, apps are commonly $1, a difference of a thousand fold

> The cost of switching phone platforms is massive compared to the app market. Phones can cost over $1000, apps are commonly $1, a difference of a thousand fold. And that's only the hardware cost. Then you have issues if there is any other app you need which is only available on one platform, or if you make use of Google or Apple services that are only well supported or supported at all on one platform and would incur substantial switching costs to move to the other. Ultimately that is up to the courts to decide. But I will point out that in a previous case involving IBM S/390 computer systems, the court decided this requirement was not met, despite the hardware expense and associated software compatibility limitations. > Which would only apply if there was a viable competing product without those restrictions. But there are only two viable phone platforms and Apple's has a strict monopoly while Google's has a de facto one where Google Play has >90% share of the Android market, and they both impose similar restrictions, so a viable option without those restrictions isn't there. I'm not sure which specific restrictions you are referring to here. If the complaint against Apple is that you cannot install apps from 3rd party sources on your iPhone, there is a competing product that allows you to do that on the market. > Furthermore, the customer for app distribution is at least as much the developer as the user -- they're the one who pays the app store's fee, right? -- and they don't get to choose which phone their customers have already bought. This is not relevant for antitrust purposes. Developers are not entitled to demand a specific company give them access to that company's users.