The market in question is licensable smartphone operating systems, which is not a market Apple operates in (edit: well, other markets are involved too, see sibling thread).
They (Commission and Court) never claimed that there aren't any markets they both operate in (which there obviously are).
And I continue to claim that looking at market this myopically doesn't actually represent the full harm and prevents the courts from making better decisions across the board. Just because Apple doesn't allow people to pay them money to deploy iOS it doesn't mean it has no effect on us consumers across the EU.
With this kind of thinking they'll just send a signal that building Apple-style locked DRM platforms is the only way to succeed - instead of building platforms that can be reused across manufacturers and can provide diversity in the market.
I really don't want to see another reenactment of Symbian with it's self-destroying fragmentation against Apple.
If you define your market narrowly enough you can make everyone a monopoly. Sometimes what is needed is to step back and say the definition is too narrow.
The issue isn't about being a monopoly, it's about using a dominant position to force the other party to use other products.
As soon as you successfully pressure someone into that kind of deal, it is pretty obvious that the product you use as leverage is dominant in some way.
They (Commission and Court) never claimed that there aren't any markets they both operate in (which there obviously are).
See the decision for more details, AFAICS it talks about Google's claim that Apple provides enough competitive constraint starting from section 145: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&do...