> That is a district court case with no value as precedent. The relevant cases are listed after the text I quoted, the quote is merely summarizing existing pre

> That is a district court case with no value as precedent. The relevant cases are listed after the text I quoted, the quote is merely summarizing existing precedent. > It's also questionable whether you can really get away with calling the entire software market an "aftermarket" of the device market. I mean, it's your claim that the "iOS software distribution" market is a separate antitrust market that Apple has monopoly control over. Not the entire software market. My point is that the courts are unlikely to see this narrow definition as a valid and separate market. If customers don't like the fact that they can only get apps from the App Store, they can simply buy a different phone that allows side-loading. Otherwise, if we accept your premise that every company that controls the distribution of software on their own phone has an antitrust violating monopoly, then even a company with 1% smartphone marketshare would be liable, which makes no sense. The rest of your post has to do with Apple's 30% commission and is kind of tangential to my main point. After all, even if they charged a 0% commission, according to your logic they would still "have a monopoly on distribution of apps to the set of customers with iOS devices ". For what it's worth I think Epic has a stronger case there.