The apple watch thing is kinda interesting.

So you make a watch and it has super tight integrations with OS level software on the phone.

I can't imagine they can force apple to write an Android app, which doesn't even have the same system level access as their OS app and provide some sort of degraded service.

Maybe they could force them to let it function in some limited way but where do you draw the line on forcing them to write android apps?

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The US Department of Justice and 16 state and district attorneys general accused Apple of operating an illegal monopoly in the smartphone market in a new antitrust lawsuit.

It alleges that Apple “selectively” imposes contractual restrictions on developers and withholds critical ways of accessing the phone, according to a release.

“Apple exercises its monopoly power to extract more money from consumers, developers, content creators, artists, publishers, small businesses, and merchants, among others,” the DOJ wrote in a press release.

“For years, Apple responded to competitive threats by imposing a series of ‘Whac-A-Mole’ contractual rules and restrictions that have allowed Apple to extract higher prices from consumers, impose higher fees on developers and creators, and to throttle competitive alternatives from rival technologies,” DOJ antitrust division chief Jonathan Kanter said in a statement.

Apple is the second tech giant the DOJ has taken on in recent years after filing two separate antitrust suits against Google over the past two administrations.

It’s instituted new rules through the Digital Markets Act to place a check on the power of gatekeepers of large platforms, several of which are operated by Apple.

The original article contains 691 words, the summary contains 182 words. Saved 74%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

antitrust law does not regard as illegal the mere possession of monopoly power where it is the product of superior skill, foresight, or industry

United States v. Grinnell Corp. (1966).

A market share of ninety percent "is enough to constitute a monopoly; it is doubtful whether sixty or sixty-four percent would be enough; and certainly thirty-three per cent is not.

United States v. Aluminum Co. of America (1945)

heard this on radio first