Apple can do whatever they want in their store. That's not anti-competitive. Restricting people from using other stores is anti-competitive. They are, quire

Apple can do whatever they want in their store. That's not anti-competitive. Restricting people from using other stores is anti-competitive. They are, quire literally, preventing competition. > But after over a decade of being the best place in retail for retailers, you discover some of your retailers are taking customer orders in the mall, but delivering to their homes and billing online, so they don’t have to pay you 30%, or contribute anything for maintenance, security, or the value of being in your mall. Apple can do whatever they want in their mall. This is about them preventing people from going to other malls. Let them enforce whatever they want for the retailers thatn want in their mall, as long as the same customers cane be served elsewhere. Apple's doing the whole company store in the company town trick, except they've figured out that if the town is also separated by a hundred miles of company road that they can control, that makes it even harder for people to get out of the trap. You can argue all you want that it's okay that Apple takes 30% of the profit on any picks sold, and that the benefits they provide to keep their people safe is just that worth it, and that they've worked hard to provide a save environment by keeping everyone else a hundred miles away through their private roads, but we've seen this story before. What makes Apple different in this case? Because people can just move to Android? Company town workers could have just left for different companies too.