That's not the point.
"Anti-competitive practices are business or government practices that prevent or reduce competition in a market.". The point of me mentioning that Apple is not the market majority was to emphasize that even with their current positions, Apple isn't capable of effectively reducing competition in the market of electronic devices, as is already proven not by legislative bodies but the market.
Just because there is someone with more market share than you does not mean that your actions can't squeeze smaller players than you (or, more commonly for apple, squeeze players in adjacent markets. See: Spotify vs Apple Music).
True that.
"See: Spotify vs Apple Music". Considering that Google has their own streaming services and takes same 30% cut, i truly wonder why Spotify didn't address their "anticompetitive practices".
I thought Apple was the more profitable platform however, also to develop for, which would imply that anti-competitive practices could deform the market because developers would be forced to bow to Apple since that is where the largest part of their profits would be coming from?
Considering that the definition of "anti competitive practices" is beyond stretched at this point, it's safe to say that those very practices are one of the reasons iOS is profitable for developers: they don't need to worry about piracy as much as they do on Android, because Apple learned the key lessons of phone manufacturers of the past.
They don’t want to reduce competition in the market of electronic devices. They are in the business of service relationships with people with lots of disposable income.
