I apologize I don't have time for an in-depth response, but a quick note is that you have some fallacies in your arguments:

>it would also make console business model or Amazon Kindle business model illegal.

My interpretation would not make console business illegal, but rather it would make limiting the product so that you are the only means of distribution illegal. I can currently side-load books onto my kindle without any sort of jailbreaking or modification. On my android phone I can download an .apk file and install it with no issues. The Google Play Store still makes fine profit, and the App Store would as well, even with competition. This most certainly would fall under the definition of a monopoly.

>For example, Apple Watch only works with iPhone. A person bought Apple Watch a year ago cannot buy a Android phone a year later and have the Apple Watch work as advertised when he/she first bought it.

You are comparing Apples to oranges. This is a lot different as a watch is hardware, not software. Plus we are talking about 1 apple software app vs another apple software app.

>For example, if iOS is going to have third party App Stores, it has to be designed in the OS.

No it doesn't really. It's not apple's responsibility to make it easy for third parties. If their apps do not work, it isn't apples responsibility to account for them. Furthermore, the OS can already handle "third party apps", it just has to be Jailbroken, or side-loaded via an MDM account. Any third party apps still have to use the internal SDK's of Apple in order to function.

> you realize when Google built Android it actually has to spent the time and the energy to design the system that enables Android's flexibility and "multiple App Store and install any app package" system.

Google did not build Android it was purchased by them in 2005. The system of installing any app is the same as installing google apps. The same with apple. There is no extra work that you're claiming, as they have to do this in order for the respective stores to work as well. This, and the comment above, are a different point that I was not making. This would be the case if Apple only allowed Apple software on their device, in which case I would not say this is a monopoly as there wouldn't be any competition for them on the iPhone. However, they do but they do not do this, so your point is moot.

>they need to think do I spend the time to engineer and maintain systems to enable interoperability?

This isn't a question of interoperability. These are all iOS apps. The question is simply the distribution source. I can make an app on my mac and load it directly onto my phone, but the only option I currently have for distribution is the App Store that Apple controls.

Right now they charge 15% of all my purchases. Would you change your opinion if they charged 50%? I guarantee that would put some people out of business. What if apple decided to charge me 15% but you 50%, which would be perfectly within their legal right? Would you agree then that the appstore is not a monopoly?

>btw, if Apple is going to allow other stores and ISVs to offer users application packages to download and install freely like it is on Windows, any company of significant size is going to start bypass Apple's stores and asking users download Exe's or their own app launchers.

Yes and why shouldn't they be able to do so? That's the whole point of the lawsuit, Apple is enforcing this to cut their competition, they are effectively proping up their own monopoly. They currently own the base product, the means of distribution, the means of access, and the means of repair, (although right to repair rulings are becoming far more common).