I keep this answer by Keith Rabois bookmarked for whenever this question pops up [1]: >Simple answer: American antirust law is not a mandate to "play nice" wi

I keep this answer by Keith Rabois bookmarked for whenever this question pops up [1]: >Simple answer: American antirust law is not a mandate to "play nice" with competitors and only governs a very small set of prohibited activities. For the most part, a company can do whatever it wants so long as it acts unilaterally. As a result, Apple can do whatever it pleases, period, so long as it does not act in concert with another company. The only exception to this rule is when a company has achieved "monopoly power" in a relevant market, which normally requires a market share (properly defined) of at least 60% and more close to 80%. Apple lacks such a market share in any market, Microsoft was believed to have that share in Operating Systems. (The only exception is an attempt to monopolize claim which would still require at least a market share of 40% to even state a claim. These claims have other elements that would be difficult to satisfy). Finally, even if Apple had the requisite market share to state a non-frivolous claim, American law does not recognize harm to competitors as a legitimate concern, you must establish harm to consumers, which is almost always very challenging unless there is a good theory of how you are raising prices at a super-competitive level. [1] https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Microsoft-punished-for-violating-antitrust-laws-while-Apple-which-is-even-worse-now-is-not-punished/answer/Keith-Rabois https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Microsoft-punished-for-violati...