I see apple as like LVMH, but for phones. It has a minority of overall sales, but a majority of the “luxury” part of the market. This gives them influence over the whole market, but not a real monopoly.

Why do their lawyers keep rehashing the same tired argument as non-lawyer HN users? You don't literally need to have 100% absolute market share. You're a monopoly if you can push people around as if you are a monopoly.

Well, yes?

Why would they voluntarily go to court if they can avoid it? Would any of you?

> Apple has argued the case against it is overly speculative and amounts to a “judicial redesign” of the iPhone. It’s sought to downplay its own influence, saying the government doesn’t allege a large enough smartphone market share to add up to monopoly power. It characterizes the third-party developers who claim they’ve been harmed as “well-capitalized social media companies, big banks, and global gaming developers.”

The word “monopoly” means different things in law and everyday use. To most people, Apple is a monopoly - it just means a company that is unjustifiably large and powerful and relatively immune to competition and pressure. We need to change the law to reflect this new reality, that anti trust isn’t just about monopolies but other large companies too.

The second bit, where they try to characterize developers abused by the App Store as powerful big capital is laughable. Even if they were, what are they next to Apple’s control over app distribution and their war chest of capital, which exceeds virtually all VC firms?