Comment by AnthonyMouse

> The solution isn’t degrading another company’s product or forcing them to do x when there’s already existing competition.

How does it in any way "degrade" their product to allow the customer to do something with it that the customer is not required to do?

> People were fully aware of what Apple was when they bought the products, Apple didn’t trick anyone, or anything.

We can disagree about this one too. Consider what happens if a company simultaneously has no ads and prohibits ad blockers. People aren't really going to object to the prohibition on ad blockers in that case, right?

Then they introduce ads and suddenly the prohibition on ad blockers becomes relevant, but your reply is that ad blockers have always been banned. Okay, but now there are ads.

If your claim is that you can't object if something doesn't change, does that imply you do get to object every something does change?

> They also are not the sole phone OEM and they don’t have a monopoly.

They have more than 50% market share in the US. The trope that anyone who has less than 100.0% market share can't violate antitrust laws is invalid.

Moreover, "two companies together have >99% of the market" is an oligopoly the likes of which is exactly what is meant to be broken up, regardless of what the split between them is. A duopoly is not a competitive market.

> There’s nothing stopping Samsung or (especially) Google from putting more effort into their lineups to match the performance, fit and finish that Apple users like.

We're talking about competition for operating systems. The GrapheneOS Foundation isn't Samsung -- and Samsung locks their bootloaders, so they can't even use Samsung.

> The appropriate comparison would be if another OEMs OS had a messaging feature baked into their OS

Only in the sense that then they would both be engaged in anti-competitive behavior.