Microsoft had a monopoly, Apple doesn't. It's as simple as that.
They are certainly complying with the laws in this regard, but the reality is that anti-competition laws need to change to deal with companies of this scale and reach.
It doesn't work that way. Otherwise I could also say that any company has a monopoly on "products with the company's name on it".
> the reality is that anti-competition laws need to change to deal with companies of this scale and reach.
Hm ... I really think that Facebook and Google are the bigger problems today. And a lot is happening there already (not so much in the US though).
I agree Facebook and google are also problems. Amazon too, likely others. They all have their walled gardens - and whats worse is when they "go to war" with each other, affecting the users tied to their services (financially or otherwise).
I didn't mean that your definition of a monopoly is incorrect, but that you can't just narrow down the market until you find a monopoly. Because if you could, every company has a monopoly (which wouldn't make any sense).
The user signed up for that, so IMHO he gets what he deserves. The only I think I would change is to disallow the use of the word "purchase" when the user only buys the right to access some DRM-ed content.