Apple and Google are a duopoly, which is just as harmful to consumers as a monopoly.
The thing is, there is nothing illegal or bad about becoming a monopoly simply by being better than everyone else. Apple and Google got to the positions they are today simply by being better than everyone else, and a duopoly is not a monopoly.
That’s the whole basis behind aggregation theory. Your product offers a superior user experience, which attracts users, which then gives the parent company leverage to exert over their suppliers. Which is something existing anti-trust law is ill-equipped to handle.
Even the cries of Apple being a monopoly sound a bit hollow because nobody has been able to convincingly argue just what market Apple dominates.
Is Apple a monopoly of iOS devices? By that (exceedingly narrow definition), Apple is a monopoly regardless of whether they have sold 1 iphone or 1 billion iPhones.
Does Apple have a monopoly in smartphones? 15% global market share seems to suggest otherwise. A strong case can be made that users certainly have choice in a wide plethora of android devices to choose from, if you desire functionality that apple devices don’t have.
Is Apple using this “monopoly” to gain an advantage in a different market? Debatable - Fortnite certainly is available on various different platforms. Even if I can’t play Fortnite on my iphone, I can still play it on a PC or even my Nintendo Switch.
Is Apple having a monopoly on profits? I am not even sure if there has been a precedent of a company with minority market share but majority revenue share being found guilty of being a monopoly. It goes back to my original point that it is not illegal for Apple to be as successful as it is by being good at what it does. That’s precisely how a capitalistic market is supposed to work.
Is 30% too high? Relative to what? I don’t see the courts taking it upon themselves to decide what a right cut ought to be, simply because nobody can agree. What if the judges could argue that 30% was actually too low, and Apple was actually justified in charging 50%?
The worst I can see if Apple taking a hit to their image, but I simply don’t see this lawsuit holding up in court because the plaintiffs are going to have a hard time proving that Apple is a monopoly in any market that matters. Before Apple can be found guilty, the laws have to change first, but that is beyond the purview of this debate.