It shouldn't matter
Apple is attempting to make a case, which has been legally discounted previously, of "Separate but Equal". That is, Apple is attempting to make a claim that an "equivalent" user experience may be acquired through completely different available technologies - but this is 100% legally flawed.
Apple's claim of equivalence is exactly equal to a claim by Ford that, once you purchase one of their automobiles, you absolutely must buy everything from gasoline to oil to parts exclusively from Ford...but this isn't monopolistic because GM can offer you the same experience of sitting behind the wheel and driving down a road. Apple's claim is that is doesn't matter what we do to our customers in our locked-down system, because they can just ( temporarily) stop using our locked-down system and try something else.
Apple's claim is that you don't have to buy our exclusive, locked-in tyres for your locked-in car...because you can always ride the bus.
Of course, from both a legal and consumer protection viewpoint, this is absolutely ridiculous. I chose the automobile as a contrasting metaphor for a reason: car manufacturers tried the same thing, lock-in of support after the main product sale, many many decades ago. And they were legally shot down.
Just because you manufacture the product that was originally sold does not give you the right to force a lock-in for everything involving that product after the sale. That's the law as applies to everything ELSE, except tech.
Tech has been allowed to use legal loopholes and fear (right to repair) to get their way.
Time for that to end.