No, offering a similar service is not prerequisite for anticompetitive douchebaggery. Like, if the RIAA had sued Lala out of existence based on flimsy loopholes, would we have said, "Oh, but the RIAA doesn't offer any service along the lines of what Lala does, so that wasn't anticompetitive in the slightest"? No, we would have said that the RIAA was trying to squash innovation and didn't want to have to keep up with the times, etc.

The point is that the parent seemed to think Apple was just killing off an innovative business model that threatened its own, but I don't think that's the case.