Comment by danShumway

> Find me a list of cases

https://9to5mac.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2024/03/UNITE...

Emphasis mine:

On whether platform APIs (like those in a web-browser) can be anti-competitive:

> Apple has used one or both mechanisms (control of app distribution or control of APIs) to suppress the following technologies...

[...]

On the need for neutral API access as a tool to increase competition:

> Messaging apps that work equally well across all smartphones can improve competition among smartphones [...]. Apple makes third-party messaging apps on the iPhone worse generally and relative to Apple Messages, Apple’s own messaging app, by prohibiting third-party apps from sending or receiving carrier-based messages...

[...]

On the suppression of APIs for third-party services:

> By suppressing key functions of third-party smartwatches —including the ability to respond to notifications and messages and to maintain consistent connections with the iPhone—Apple has denied users access to high performing smartwatches with preferred styling, better user interfaces and services, or better batteries, and it has harmed smartwatch developers by decreasing their ability to innovate and sell products.

[...]

On the use of privacy as an excuse restrict 3rd-party APIs that are not restricted for 1st-party services:

> In the end, Apple deploys privacy and security justifications as an elastic shield that can stretch or contract to serve Apple’s financial and business interests.

[...]

If you need it stated even more clearly:

> Apple selectively designates APIs as public or private to benefit Apple, limiting the functionality developers can offer to iPhone users even when the same functionality is available in Apple’s own apps, or even select third-party apps.

This is directly analogous to what Google is doing here. Shipping a by-default extension which takes advantage of a distribution channel (Chrome's list of default extensions) that is not available to 3rd-party developers. That extension grants Google access to a private API that benefits Google while limiting the functionality that third party sites can offer their users, and I quote: "even when the same functionality is available in [Google]'s own apps."

You do not know what you are talking about.

> Have you considered some people actually deal with anti trust on a day to day?

And I hope to God that you're not one of them.