Apple fights to keep DOJ antitrust suit from reaching trial

> Apple has argued the case against it is overly speculative and amounts to a “judicial redesign” of the iPhone. It’s sought to downplay its own influence, saying the government doesn’t allege a large enough smartphone market share to add up to monopoly power. It characterizes the third-party developers who claim they’ve been harmed as “well-capitalized social media companies, big banks, and global gaming developers.”

The word “monopoly” means different things in law and everyday use. To most people, Apple is a monopoly - it just means a company that is unjustifiably large and powerful and relatively immune to competition and pressure. We need to change the law to reflect this new reality, that anti trust isn’t just about monopolies but other large companies too.

The second bit, where they try to characterize developers abused by the App Store as powerful big capital is laughable. Even if they were, what are they next to Apple’s control over app distribution and their war chest of capital, which exceeds virtually all VC firms?

> We need to change the law to reflect this new reality, that anti trust isn’t just about monopolies but other large companies too.

Why do you say that? Perhaps you're right, but I'm curious the reasoning.

I ask because Apple has earned its way out of near bankruptcy 25 years ago, by risking and investing and innovating, and their customers are still outnumbered by Android users, last I saw.

Agreed about the App Store mess.