That’s not what antitrust is about. Functionally speaking, you would not be able to prove there’s economic harm. Apple’s share of smartphone does not even compare to MSFT’s share of PC back in 90/00s.
Anti-trust law has gone through a variety of interpretations over the long history of its existence, and I think your characterization of it is incorrect, even under today's recent interpretations.
This suit seems to follow the interpretation of: "it is bad if consumers are being harmed in some way". Having a monopoly position via market share is not a necessary condition for that to happen.
How were consumers harmed from iMessage? Apple doesn’t stop people from downloading Whatsapp and hundreds of other communication apps. The only semi-valid argument they have is the app store. And even that is 10-20% chance considering Apple’s market share. Even though this is DoJ, this is all a part of Lina Khan’s naive crusade against NATURAL monopolies. Just because she doesn’t understand economics and how the real world operates in 2024.
Sounds like you need new colleagues. Why would you wish to be part of such a snobbish group? I fail to see why anti-trust law should be brought to bear on issues concerning teen fads. How about wearing the right kind of sneakers? Branded purses, handbags? Parkas? Should uniformity reign universal across all consumer products lest someone, somewhere be excluded to a faddish distinction?
As a European living in the US, I've found that it's nearly impossible to get on American's group chats without an iPhone. Hence I've had to shift my friend groups to be mostly other foreigners.
The Americans all say that to get in, you need an iPhone. So definitely a smart monopolistic strategy from Apple.
