You are not a lawyer I presume. This isn't remotely related to tying - and buying an iPhone doesn't force you to buy anything at all from the app store.
And it's completely unrelated to any commissions from the App store.
If you read more of the wikipedia article, you'll see Apple and Microsoft come up - but either entirely different issues that are wholly unrelated to their App Store pricing.
The point is that this is analogous to Microsoft shipping Internet Explorer with Windows to try and kill Netscape. Apple does the same thing with their app store. Except this goes a step further: imagine how the Microsoft antitrust suit would have gone if in addition to shipping a free competing product, Microsoft had built something into Windows so that Netscape wouldn't run at all and demanded Netscape only sell their browser through Microsoft Internet Explorer with Microsoft taking a 30% commission.
Microsoft didn't lose their antitrust case because of any of that - they lost because they were paying OEMs to not install software - and if they did, they were punishing them. The rebate scheme was really central to the issue.
Then, they didn't clearly say "you can't install software" or "everyone who wants to install software has to do X" they just made installing Netscape or removing IE functionally broken.
That's really different than "everyone who wants to make money through my platform has to pay me 30%".
The place Apple might actually have trouble would be Spotify - where Apple is competing with their product, allowing subscriptions in-app for their own platform, but not for Spotify unless they cough up 30% or whatever.
And it's completely unrelated to any commissions from the App store.
If you read more of the wikipedia article, you'll see Apple and Microsoft come up - but either entirely different issues that are wholly unrelated to their App Store pricing.