It doesn't matter what Apple and/or Android were doing in the early years as they didn't have dominant or duopoly positions in mobile OS. The situation changed over time as iOS and Android became the only two major players in that space. That is why both are potential targets for antitrust laws.
The BIG Problem you have here is that arguing that Apple engaging in what you say Anti Competitive practices by preventing Side Loading and Multiple App Stores but this was 2007 and 2008 when they weren't dominant so by that statement it was perfectly acceptable for Apple to do this and engage in these practices. but not in 2023 whereas would argue that not engaging those practices as they engaged them in 2007/8 and apparently you have no problem with them doing that in 2007/8 by that statement.
Apple is engaging in anticompetitive behavior as it relates to its dominance and iOS restrictions (sideloading, alternative app stores, etc.). However, Apple will still be able to decide what apps they allow in their app store, what fees they charge, etc. The difference will be the new/additional app access competition that can come from allowing sideloading, alternative app stores, etc. and how they choose to react to that added competition.
Well they engaged in this back in the days when they were small and your argument in response is doesn't matter what they did when not a dominant player.
Browser Engine restriction was 2007 on day one of launch of iPhone. So 0% market share growing to 5% by the end of 2007. And number 5 by market share. Symbian, RIM, Windows Mobile, Others, iOS.
App Stores/Side Loading was 2008 with the launch of the Apple App Store. By then iOS had overtaken Others to become Number 4. and market share 11% by end of the year.
Percentages are Global Market Share as behaviour is Global in those decisions with iOS.
Hard to argue that iOS was a dominant mobile os when had 0% market share in 2007 and was 4th place in 2008.
Certainly not a Duopoly with Android when did these actions.
How have these actions lead to iOS become dominant?
Could argue that whilst small then doesn't matter that anti-competitive however at that point you are arguing that new entries to a market can be anti-competitive until they become a dominant market player.
ie launch a new product and enact anti-competitive behaviour to remove your competition and promote your own product until it becomes a dominant product.
To which your response was that it didn't matter as they were not dominant. So it has been "Acceptable" for 15-16 years?
So basically arguing for a non-level market.
Big Players in the Market have to be regulated
Small Players can do things that the Big Players cannot.
Apple back in 2007 and 2008 restricting web engine and apple app store only - not a problem according your response as not dominant in market
Apple in 2023 restricting web engine and apple app store only - anti-competitive and restrictive despite doing so since 2007/2008
So doing EXACTLY the same thing in 2023 as was in 2007 and 2008
For which your answer was this.
It doesn't matter what Apple and/or Android were doing in the early years as they didn't have dominant or duopoly positions in mobile OS. The situation changed over time as iOS and Android became the only two major players in that space. That is why both are potential targets for antitrust laws.
So on that basis then if Apple was a small player then there would be nothing in terms of these for Apple to answer too yet they would be doing exactly the SAME things and the EU wouldn't be looking at Apple yet Apple would be doing nothing differently.
So if Apples Market share shrinks then they can go back and get rid of side loading and competing app stores. Where is the barrier level after which they can do this and they no longer considered dominant.
EU didn't raise this in 2007/8 when had crept upto 11% so is 11% the barrier?
You are basically saying that companies can engage in what you say are restrictive and anti-competitive practices to establish themselves in the market and then enjoy the fruits of that restrictive and anti-competitive practices afterwards but have to stop doing them once become dominant, sitting back and enjoying the rewards of your business practices and putting the competition out of the market.
This fallacy is precisely why many people so upset with the penalty that RedBull got when found guilty of breaching the budget cap and overtaking Mercedes in F1 in 2021
By breaching the budget cap then put there car ahead of the competition which is then retained in the following years and the penalty isn't exactly holding RedBull back when two years later even more dominant in 2023 then before.
So by your statement then would be OK for Alpha Tauri (currently bottom of table) to breach the budget cap as they are not a dominant player in the market but that would allow them to outspend there rivals and overtake them and become dominant and then sit back in the agreed budget cap for everyone, whilst gaining all the benefits of having broken the rules initially.
Regulation needs to be applied equally to all people in a market.