That requires making the case that the consumer believes they are buying a general computing device that they can use for any purpose and customize freely, which is simply not the case.
Furthermore, repair applies to the hardware of the device, not the software ecosystem. You have to make a separate, very different argument for software as it is more malleable and less restricted than hardware components are.
> That requires making the case that the consumer believes they are buying a general computing device
Considering Apple has been pushing the "iPad is a PC replacement," it's a fairly easy case to make with regard to iOS and the App store. There is a lot Apple has done to push the idea that the "users" are in control of their information and that "there is an app for that." Couple that with the history of people being able to customize their phones in certain ways, it's not a case that is that hard to make, especially when compared to contemporary phones.
I do think you have a better argument: if Apple has falsely advertised the capabilites of its platform as being capable of general computing, it may be liable on that count. I do not think you can argue a history of customizing phones, given Apple was the first provider with this scale of adoption.
I am arguing it is constrained by its manufacturer and that consumers are well aware of those constraints on purchase. That is sufficient for the consumer to take on liability if the choice does not meet their needs.
Again, a consumer using something doesn't justify anti-competitive behavior with companies. If the bar for antitrust was whether or not a person bought it, then there wouldn't be a need for antitrust law.
