> The point I'm making is that the issue isn't that there's a monopoly
I made the same mistake at one point, so I feel for you[1], but what was actually said was "monopolistic". That is not the same as a monopoly. One can act in a monopolistic manner without actually having a monopoly.
[1] But I don't feel for, and frankly find it incredibly strange, that you are now doubling down on your mistake after it was brought to your attention that you were speaking outside of the context of discussion.
The top-level comment was talking about a monopoly, and you talked about Apple having a monopolistic position. In markets where Apple is in not in monopolistic positions, nor is it a monopoly, the problem is the anti-consumer and anti-competitive practices that enable it to put itself between market participants, not the position. Even if Apple doesn't seek a monopoly, the app distribution practices are the problem and would lead to the same undue value extraction.
I'm taking monopolistic position to mean a grossly dominant market position short of a monopoly. If you meant it as engaging in "monopolistic competition", that's another concept entirely that's irrelevant here. I also took monopolistic behaviour to mean behaviour seeking to monopolize.
I made the same mistake at one point, so I feel for you[1], but what was actually said was "monopolistic". That is not the same as a monopoly. One can act in a monopolistic manner without actually having a monopoly.
[1] But I don't feel for, and frankly find it incredibly strange, that you are now doubling down on your mistake after it was brought to your attention that you were speaking outside of the context of discussion.