Apple’s customers bought their iPhone knowing alternative stores are not available.
Your perspective seems to be to ignore the very existence of anti trust rules that stand for the proposition that even if the customer knows what they’re getting in a free market capitalist transaction it can be illegal.
Can’t your justification of Apple be used for every anti trust case? “AT&T’s customers bought their service knowing alternative rotary dial telephones manufactured by 3rd parties are not available.”
I’m not an antitrust lawyer, but I suspect the fact that Android exists makes iPhone not a monopoly.
AT&T owned the phone lines and the equipment, leading to that problem. So if Apple went and bought all of the cell service providers and said “You’re only allowed to use iPhones” that would be similar, and they would probably cease to exist relatively quickly.
Your perspective seems to be to ignore the very existence of anti trust rules that stand for the proposition that even if the customer knows what they’re getting in a free market capitalist transaction it can be illegal.
Can’t your justification of Apple be used for every anti trust case? “AT&T’s customers bought their service knowing alternative rotary dial telephones manufactured by 3rd parties are not available.”
I’m not an antitrust lawyer, but I suspect the fact that Android exists makes iPhone not a monopoly.
AT&T owned the phone lines and the equipment, leading to that problem. So if Apple went and bought all of the cell service providers and said “You’re only allowed to use iPhones” that would be similar, and they would probably cease to exist relatively quickly.