> So what? All markets work like this. Food prices go up whenever there fuel prices increase If it were a monopoly then anti-competitive practices, that would

> So what? All markets work like this. Food prices go up whenever there fuel prices increase If it were a monopoly then anti-competitive practices, that would result in price increases, would be illegal . > Apple created this entire market It doesn't matter if they created the whole market. That is completely irrelevant to the legality of anti-competitive practices. Now, they are a monopoly, and they are no longer to allowed to engage in anti-competitive behavior. > they could've been far more anti-competitive than they are The idea that they could do worse, is not an argument against something as for why it is not bad. Apple could do many things that are worse than what they are doing now. Maybe, in the future they will hire assassins to kill anyone who does not own an iphone. But that hypothetical world, does not make the current world any better. It is not an excuse. > Why should the free advertising, access to a market that has users that spend more on average, be free to anyone? Because the purpose of laws are to help consumers, not to protect apple. The reason why the law should force apple to allow competitors, is because by doing this, this helps consumers. > They had market dominance - Apple does not. Apple absolutely has market dominance over apps that are sold on the iphone. They prevent competitors from running app stores on that platform. This is a huge market.