Apple has a monopoly on iOS regardless of whether it has sold 1 billion iPhones or just 1 iPhone, by virtue of it not licensing its OS to other companies. This in itself doesn't really prove anything, IMO.They are (have been) been a monopoly on iOS.
They are a duopoly with Google in mobile operating systems.
They are estimated to account for more than half (a majority) of mobile app spend, yet…
And even if I agree that Apple and Google currently form a duopoly (though no fault of their own really; the EU could always choose to bankroll their own tech giant if they wish to see a third competitor in the market that they control), I can't really agree that the solution to this is to force Apple to become more like Google (ie: open up access to side loading and third party app stores), rather than allow Apple to remain as a sufficiently differentiated alternative to Android (eg: tight integration vs modularity).
Finally, it's the last part that never fails to tickle me. Once upon a time, "conventional wisdom" was that Apple was doomed. Android's modular approach would result in more innovation at lower prices and the iPhone's market share would rapidly dwindle to the point where even developers would give up on the market (or so they said). As it turned out, Apple's focus on integration would result in a superior user experience for which a small but not insignificant number of people are willing to pay a premium for. This lucrative customer base allowed the iOS App Store to generate more sales for developers compared to the android App Store despite having just a fraction of users.
Let it also be clear that I am an iPhone user first and foremost. Not a Spotify user, nor a Netflix user, or a Fortnite user.
Now, the people who said that Apple's closed approach would be its downfall, are now arguing that it is this same closed approach that has made Apple too powerful and too successful, and that is why it needs to be reined in. You all just can't admit that Apple was right, and had always been right.
At the same time, Apple has managed to counteract slower device sales (due to longer device upgrade cycles) by pivoting from selling iPhones to selling to people with iPhones (eg: apps, services, accessories, higher prices), which I feel is both commendable and impressive from a business management viewpoint. Yet again, when Apple does well financially, it gets criticised for being greedy. And yet if Apple ever chooses to make less money (say by reducing its App Store cut), I am sure there will be no lack of criticism of how its lower earning reports are proof that it is doomed.
Apple just can't win.
Did Apple become as successful as it did despite these supposedly onerous App Store policies, or because of them? Is Apple guilty of inserting itself between cosnsumers and businesses, or do iOS users legitimately prefer it that way (which is why they bought iPhones and iPads in the first place, rather than flock to android with the ability to sideload (aka pirate) apps and all?) Every argument made so far has been from the perspective of developers (and most notably, a small number of very vocal developers who clearly have an axe to grind with Apple). We have not really heard anything from consumers regarding what they think of this, or whether it's even something the majority want.
I remain of the opinion that sometimes, the priorities of consumers and developers / suppliers are just simply diametrically opposed (ie: what is good for the developer may be bad for the end user, and vice versa), and there is really no shame in admitting this. One of the chief reasons for the success of the iPhone is because Apple used its power over developers to rein them in (one of the chief factors that create a better experience for the end user).
That's what rubs me the wrong way. I can agree with you in principle that perhaps it is in society's interests to allow innovation on essential infrastructure, but the entities crafting said legislation need to be honest in the very least and admit that yes, they are undeniably violating Apple's property rights in this regard, but Apple will still get compensated at the end of the day (somehow), this tradeoff is being measured as a society, and it feels like the EU can't even be 100% honest about what they are doing (because any admission would open a whole can of worms).
Which is why I ultimately support Apple pushing back until the EU can be honest about what is truly being asked here. And maybe that's really all I am asking for at the end of the day.