Comment by eyelidlessness

I think you’re responding to a more basic question than I posed. I think I made it clear I understand the government can compel actions…

> that the government believes will make it so the company can't abuse its market position to harm consumers anymore

… and that I don’t believe “Apple must support Android messages” is that.

Since you mention Microsoft, I think it would be equally indefensible if the government had ordered “Microsoft must create a Windows Subsystem for Linux” as a remedy for their market abuse. Or a much closer analogy, “Microsoft must create a Windows Subsystem for Macintosh”.

I would find it much more compelling if the order were something like “Microsoft must maintain stable interfaces for Linux and/or Macintosh vendors to produce a functioning Windows Subsystem”. But it seems pretty absurd to me that the government could just mandate arbitrary labor on arbitrary products on behalf of their competitors.