First Apple would need to be considered a monopoly. They're clearly not a monopoly since there are so many smart phone alternatives available.

That's not true, you don't have to be a monopoly to get in trouble for anti-competitive behavior, you just have to be... participating in anti-competitive behavior.

Yes, but what's anti-competitive depends on what your market position is.

True, but a company that is already the target of one antitrust lawsuit probably has less leeway than it used to.

> antitrust regulators?

> antitrust |ˌantēˈtrəst; ˌantī-|

> adjective [ attrib. ]

> of or relating to legislation preventing or controlling trusts or other monopolies, with the intention of promoting competition in business.

In pretty much every thread about Apple on this site, you will be reminded that Android enjoys amazing sales.

> Wasn't the entire IE shipping with Windows situation based on a competitive functionality?

Microsoft was found to be a de-facto monopoly on the desktop.

Nice phonetics. You're right. No less frustrating though. Anytime I'm denied a choice, especially in the face of enforced inferiority it raises my hackles. Here's hoping all the protesting and ridicule will get the job done.

>In pretty much every thread about Apple on this site, you will be reminded that Android enjoys amazing sales.

And in the same threads and on Apple blogs like Gruber's and Siegler, you're constantly reminded how it doesn't matter because Apple takes ~75% of the profits, and statistics on how apps are more profitable on iOS because Apple users are the premium users willing to pay and how many Android users are too cheap to buy apps. So if you're an app maker looking to make money, iOS is pretty much close to a monopoly if you're trying to make money.

Its only a monopoly if you are very narrow minded about the market. Brew and J2ME have multi-billion dollar app markets that compete with Apple and Android in terms of volume.

Citation please?

So far as I know, Nokia was a leader in non/pre-iOS/Android app markets. For some reason I think their results weren't competitive with iOS or even Android...

Microsoft held a monopoly.

Yes, but Microsoft did not completely ban Netscape from running on Windows like Apple did with podcast apps, Google Voice etc. so the situation is not exactly analogous.

Everyone could and many did install Netscape, IE 3+ was just better after Netscape stagnated at version 4 for years because of a rewrite. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html

Microsoft shipped their browser default since an OS without a browser did not make sense. The user was completely free to install any other competing browsers without needing to jailbreak the device.

If Microsoft actually stopped Netscape from running, could you imagine the backlash?

> Yes, but Microsoft did not completely ban Netscape from running on Windows like Apple did with podcast apps, Google Voice etc. so the situation is not exactly analogous.

Which is not relevant, I fear. Action was taken against microsoft because they were a monopoly and used their monopoly position both to hinder potential competition and muscle their way into new markets.

That's weird, because I have Google Voice and three other browsers on my iPhone...

Google Voice was in limbo for over an year, was neither approved nor rejected. And if you the three browsers are equivalent to having a choice of three browsers on the desktop, think again. All of them are forced to use the builtin webkit.