Well it depends on what your bar is for a monopoly. E.g. I can only use Comcast where I live. Comcast is not technically a monopoly - I could move somewhere else where other providers are available. But the friction to change is high enough that they effectively are a monopoly to me.
No company is a monopoly if you are flexible enough. Where antitrust starts to become relevant is a bit of an arbitrary line. If you think "mobile phones" is the industry then Apple does not have a monopoly. But there are many people who would put up with a lot before switching from iOS to Android, because of apps, iCloud, iMessaging, or whatever.
iOS is a product in a larger market. It is not the market itself. There are other products in the market in which iOS is a product, and there's nothing stopping more entrants (besides the enormous engineering/business effort, the likes of which have already been undertaken by current players like Apple/Google).
Your argument would be equally invalid if you were to say Uber is a monopoly because Lyft can't get a slice of the profits from Uber drivers, or that Pepsi is a monopoly because Coca-Cola receives no royalties from sales of Pepsi products.
Dominoes is not a monopoly. They make pizzas in a market that is larger than just Dominoes' pizzas. Nobody could reasonably argue that Dominoes is a monopoly just because you can't purchase Pizza Hut pizza at a Dominoes location.
> Since 2011, Google has imposed illegal restrictions on Android device manufacturers and mobile network operators to cement its dominant position in general internet search.
> In particular, Google:
> - has required manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and browser app (Chrome), as a condition for licensing Google's app store (the Play Store);
> - made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app on their devices; and
> - has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks").
None of this describes anything Apple does. I don't think this ruling means what you think it means. It's talking about the _combination_ of search engine, licensing the OS to hardware vendors, _and_ the Google app store. None of those on their own led to this ruling.
It's all about how Google controls the licensing of Android, by controlling hardware vendor's licensing of other flavors of Android. (edit to add: and how this all feeds back into their search engine dominance. That is another point the linked document repeats on multiple occasions.)
> As a licensable operating system, Android is different from operating systems exclusively used by vertically integrated developers (like Apple iOS or Blackberry). Those are not part of the same market because they are not available for licence by third party device manufacturers.
