Surely, it then makes sense to perhaps take into account what people are saying, no? The issue here is a very clear cut case of antitrust. You seem to opine fac

Surely, it then makes sense to perhaps take into account what people are saying, no? The issue here is a very clear cut case of antitrust. You seem to opine facts and laws shouldn't matter in this discussion on the assumption that only legal professionals can know stuff that is relevant, and those are as you put it, by assumption, not present. Then, you are repeating the, to be frank, tiresome talking point that doubles as missing the point, whilst being a strawman: "it isn't a monopoly, because you can buy an android". So to reiterate, "monopoly" as total market share isn't the issue here. It doesn't need to be for there to be a case of antitrust. And, it clearly is such a case, no matter how much you attempt to change the discussion to "is/isn't a monopoly". They are orthogonal issues. You can have monopolies and duopolies without there being grounds for anti-trust. Just to summarize, and also hit the nail on the head, and perhaps be less polite (not intentional, but sometimes it helps with clarity): "In other words, I cannot fathom how anti-trust law applies since Apple doesn't have much leverage to abuse in the first place", you are 100% mistaken on both accounts (though spot on, on the inability). The former misconception I've already explained, the latter is to be found in troves, the article I linked earlier has a good explanation on a lot of points, and unwillingness to educate yourself is also your own business. So, I'm chalking this up as a willful ignorance, which is fine. I'm not really interesting in arguing with you, or all that bothered with trying to convince you. So, I suppose we can leave it as is.