There is no market in those two examples. No one buys Tesla operating systems, and no one buys IKEA screws. In both cases, those are building blocks of the whol

There is no market in those two examples. No one buys Tesla operating systems, and no one buys IKEA screws. In both cases, those are building blocks of the whole. You must have a market before you can abuse it. In addition, you must have a firm and durable market power. If IKEA had a strong screw market across multiple segments, and then abused that position through exclusionary practices, you could argue a potential illegal monopoly. Likewise, if Tesla operating systems were closer to 90’s Microsoft, you could have an argument there. Notice no one is arguing an iOS monopoly. The App Store fits the legal definition of a market. Apple has a firm and durable market power (over 50% in multiple countries, including the US, which is their highest revenue). Apple excludes some from this app market. Apple can and does prevent certain firms from succeeding in their marketplace. It is not unheard of to have Apple reject or pull apps once they decide that they want to add that app’s feature to iOS. Once the app is pulled into iOS, it gains functionality not available to other apps. Their monopoly was gained not by innovation, but by the fact that they set the rules of this market - you simply cannot make a competing App Store. These are red flags and should be investigated.