Mark Scott for Politico:
Apple – not Facebook or Google – quickly emerges as the test case for how officials in Brussels, Washington and beyond are squeezing Big Tech's digital empires spanning large swathes of the world, according to government officials, tech rivals and lawyers representing consumers in class action lawsuits against the iPhone manufacturer.
Other Silicon Valley cheats are also under renewed scrutiny for allegedly unfairly promoting their services over competitors. But with European government complaints and U.S. lawsuits piling up against Apple, the technology giant is now at the center of a regulatory ̵1; and increasingly political – storm over potential antitrust abuse. The US Department of Justice also opened its own antitrust investigation into the dominance of technology companies' web platforms on July 23.
Ahead of next year's US presidential election and a new EU commission starting work in November, industry leaders claim that lawmakers and officials have targeted tech firms like Apple as the winner of a lightweight vote amid a public outlook on Silicon Valley … With EU decision makers already undergoing two separate antitrust complaints against the company, and the US Department of Justice moving forward with its own probe into online platforms, Apple is at the crossroads of renewed regulatory action from some of the world's most powerful public agencies.
MacDailyNews Take: Typical for politicians to take on the one company talks about nothing near a monopoly in any market where it competes, while putting the two companies with clear monopoly – and comprehensive evidence of abuse of their monopoly positions of both – on the back burner. The real issues where too much power is concentrated and the potential for abuse of their market power is greatest is obviously Google and Facebook.
Since Apple does not have a monopoly in any market they participate in, there is no legal basis for action against Apple Inc.
So, Apple's case, there is no monopoly (which is legal by the way) , much less monopoly abuse (which is explicitly impossible given the lack of monopoly). You cannot abuse a monopoly and therefore face antitrust actions when you do not have a monopoly to begin with.
Worldwide smartphone market share, February 2019:
• Android: 74.15%
• iOS: 23.28%  As we wrote on May 13th about the App Store legal challenge (s):
We believe that the final end to this legal challenge will be that developers will be able to accept payment in their apps without being forced to give Apple a cut or as much cut as it does today.
Companies that are currently large enough to work around Apple and send users to their own payment sites include Amazon and Netflix. Apple will likely have to end this practice and allow all developers to allow users to subscribe to services, buy ebooks, etc. in their apps without a 15% -30% fee. A small fee can be durable, since Apple obviously costs to run the App Store. We look for the legal gears of grinding ice cream and finally spit out the end results.
By the way: On every iPhone, iPod touch, iPad and iPad mini box, the potential buyer is informed of claims, including "iTunes Xx or later required for some features" and also that an "iTunes Store account" is required. If the plaintiffs did not like the terms that came with Apple devices, they should have chosen a pretend iPhone from one of a penny for half a dozen handset mounts, in which case they could blissfully attack their fake iPhones with malicious software from a
Also note that Apple does not set prices for paid apps.
Finally, the amount that Apple Inc. has driven down software prices across the board, across all major computing platforms, does legal action such as this prominently ridiculous .