There's plenty of scope to fairly critique the BH piece. He's not perfect or beyond taking a few shot across the bow on a controversial subject. But the situat

There's plenty of scope to fairly critique the BH piece. He's not perfect or beyond taking a few shot across the bow on a controversial subject. But the situation of apple and google colluding (ie, this linked article) IMHO is a ~different situation here than the subject of the BH piece. 1> Google and AAPL as of the time of the lawsuit were not small players (fighting for their lives). They were 'fat cats' essentially at the top of the food chain. 2> Their motivations seem inherently economic/greedy, and fundamentally anti-competitive. They were not even vaguely 'customer centric' or otherwise constructive (except at the most tenditious levels). 3> The defendents were self aware their actions were unethica/illegal, and in the context of (1) and (2), were actively taking steps to hide/bury/conspire/collude regarding the illegal activity. So this type of context is not the same. Calling out the BH essay seems to add a layer of useful sophistication to the discussion here. Half the utility, tho, is understanding the difference.