You great uncle died (1888) even before the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed by the Congress (1890), so he certainly would have no idea why you are invoking his name here.
iPhone is in a primary market. App distribution on iOS, where Apple has absolute monopoly (
Kodak says that this is possible), is a single-brand secondary aftermarket dependent on the primary market. Apple purposely put in place technological barriers in iOS that prevent users from using other app stores. That's the exclusionary anti-competitive conduct.
Kodak says even if
Kodak did not have monopoly in the primary market, it can have monopoly in the single-brand secondary aftermarket of repair service for Kodak printers. And the district court ruled that its conduct did violate section 2 of the Sherman Act.
My point was that app distribution on iOS is not a contractually created monopoly, so it can be a relevant antitrust market. "The law prohibits an antitrust claimant from resting on market power that arises solely from
contractual rights that customers
knowingly and voluntarily gave to the defendant (as in Queen City Pizza and Forsyth)."(
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/112744/eastman-kodak-co-v-image-technical-services-inc/)
It's curious why so many people defend Apple even though
Apple in the past has been found to violate antitrust laws: Apple conspired with book publishing companies to raise and fix the price for e-books and was ordered to pay $450 million (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_Inc.)
Wonder how much Apple will pay this time (Epic did not ask for damages, but hopefully FTC or DoJ can issuse some "epic" fines for Apple).