Perhaps I don't know what you mean "monopoly on iPhone Apps". I said they don't have a monopoly on iPhone or iOS, because such a statement is nonsensical. It s

Perhaps I don't know what you mean "monopoly on iPhone Apps". I said they don't have a monopoly on iPhone or iOS, because such a statement is nonsensical. It seems to me that you moved the goalposts to talking about iPhone apps. I mean, they obviously don't have a monopoly on iPhone apps either (probably 99.99% of all apps are not written by Apple). What they have is significant and costly contractual terms which they require developers to agree to before they let you publish an app on their device. Some argue that those terms may be illegally anti-competitive, but it wouldn't be because of a "monopoly". The court case you referenced emphatically states that explicit contractual provisions cannot form the boundaries of an antitrust submarket. Fundamentally consumers have a choice when they buy a smartphone. They can choose from several different manufacturers, and the market is highly competitive. The whole beauty of a capitalist market is that companies get to choose the features and experience their product provides to differentiate themselves, and as long as consumers have a choice between products, those products should live or die based on those features and experience. Apple is clearly doing quite well in a highly competitive market making the product design choices they are making, because consumers are choosing that experience over the alternative. To bring it back to the Kodak case, if we were to consider whether Apple has a monopoly on iPhone repair & service, I would say, "Hey gpm, that's entirely possible. I don't know if they do or don't, but it's important that they aren't anti-competitively dominating that market!" Repair and service of a brand is logically quite different from the brand itself.