iOS and Android taken together are clearly a monopoly though. So call it a cartel or duopoly with price fixing if you like rather than a monopoly. It's exactly the kind of situation that antitrust laws were created to prevent.

Unless you can find proof of collusion I’m not sure it matters.

Making matters worse the Google Play Store is completely optional you’ve been able to side load for years. To the degree Google prevented that they just got kicked in the teeth for it.

So you’re going to have to argue that the combination of the Apple App Store, plus Google, plus Samsung, plus everything else all work together to screw over users.

Good luck.

> iOS and Android taken together are clearly a monopoly though.

That’s impossible by definition, a literal contradiction in terms.

Thus the following sentence in my comment: "So call it a cartel or duopoly with price fixing if you like rather than a monopoly."

Except that it isn't a cartel and there is no evidence of price fixing.

And there is nothing preventing other companies e.g. Samsung making their own store.

Price fixing doesn’t require active coordination. It can be tacit/implicit.

For it to be illegal it has to involve an agreement between competitors. It doesn’t have to be in writing, but it does require communication.

Setting the price the same as your competitors is not price fixing.

> iOS and Android taken together are clearly a monopoly though.

That's deceptive language that undermines your argument.

A monopoly is a market with the "absence of competition", creating a situation where a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular thing.

If you said "duopoly" your argument would be more easily entertained or if you said "cartel". However, neither of these two characterizations stand up to scrutiny either.