Apple has ~15% market share (fluctuating) so it's not really a monopoly situation. Google will give you access to the exact same Spotify service.
Whether what Apple is doing is legal or not I guess the courts will decide. But it's certainly factually incorrect to imply that you're not free to buy from anywhere else.
EDIT: comments have made clear that Windows had a monopoly on the personal computer space, whereas Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the smartphone or tablet space.
MS had a monopoly in the personal computer industry. Apple does not have one in the mobile industry. By this logic Mercedes has a monopoly on all Mercedes cars but they're clearly not one in the auto industry. If Mercedes ever decides to ban or squeeze a supplier, monopoly will not be the argument to nail them.
I'm not saying Apple is right to do this. I'm saying the monopoly on their own product is not the correct argument. Apple is not a monopoly. If they lose this case it won't be based on this.
The other posters are right about the Microsofty monopoly, but what made it particularly egregious was Microsoft's anti-competitive practices using their market dominance to actively damage or destroy competitors. This included:
* Contractually barring licensees from offering competing OSes, or selling boxes without Windows installed.
* Leveraging their OS dominance to get dominance in other markets such as linking OS licensing with licenses for other software.
* Pinching competitor's technology using their advantages as platform owner and rolling it into their own products (Stac).
>* Leveraging their OS dominance to get dominance in other markets such as linking OS licensing with licenses for other software.
Such as leveraging their preferred status to get dominance for Apple Music (by being able to charge less since they aren't subject to a 30% Apple Store 'fee')?
Although I don't disagree, the difference was that Microsoft had a monopoly on computing. Not just on PC but take computing as a whole and microsoft was hugely dominant. From a legal standpoint there is a huge difference.
Desktop computing -- in the 90s in the server area there was more competition, primarily from Netware.
It wasn't until the end of the 90s when macs started making an impression on peoples desktops, with the imac, but oddly enough if https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_desktop_operati... is to be believed, windows still has a 95% share of the desktop/laptop market.
I believe it because Windows comes on all kinds of devices and supports all kinds of hardware mixes and SKUs. It effectively encompasses the entire price range in a way that Apple doesn't care to.
Whether what Apple is doing is legal or not I guess the courts will decide. But it's certainly factually incorrect to imply that you're not free to buy from anywhere else.