But… shouldn’t mostly everyone here view needing the EU to force the behaviour of a US company kind of against the entire supposed benefit of the US system and the purpose of the domain this forum is hosted on?
United States vs. Microsoft Corp, 2001? [0]
And ongoing: United States vs. Google LLC (2020) [1] and United States vs Google LLC (2023) [2].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Google_LLC_(2...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Google_LLC_(2...
Edited: formatting
As the wikipedia page you yourself are citing, overturned on appeal.
> And ongoing: United States vs. Google LLC (2020) [1] and United States vs Google LLC (2023) [2].
Ongoing, so a bit hard to count these as evidence of successful market regulation.
If you have an OS, everything within should be open for competition and courts have generally ruled as such for years.
[0]https://www.npr.org/2007/09/17/14465160/eu-court-defeats-mic...
So the law says "Don't do behavior X", the government takes you to court, there is a judgment, you appeal, and win the appeal.
I'm not sure "dismissed on appeal" means "this isn't working as intended".
Successful market regulation includes investigating issues, prosecuting them where there is reasonable grounds to do so and it also includes a determination (either in investigation or in court) that something is not an issue.
European here. From my POV it seems as if the USA have forgotten that for a truly free market to exist, there needs to be serious oversight to prevent capitalism from devolving into "corporate Darwinism" - aka the strong ones staying strong because they (b)eat all the competition by being so strong in the first place or because they impose their externalities upon everyone else.
There is many an argument to be had if a free-market system is better than one more oriented on the government running things (obviously, I'm in the latter camp), but the problem is y'all don't have a free market at that point.
A capitalist economy needs the government for some very key laws like upholding private property rights but how does that extend to "mandating interoperable message systems"?
By simply looking at the general state of the US economy that has lost competition across the board over the last decades as large companies consolidated to form extremely large behemoths that dominate their respective markets (e.g. Boeing for aircraft, Microsoft for computer operating systems and office software, Meta for social media, Walmart for groceries, Google for search, Cargill/Tyson/JBS in agriculture, AA/Delta/Southwest/United in airlines), use both legal and illegal (such as wage collusion) tactics to cement their marketshare, and extract ruinously low purchase prices from their vendors. This shit used to be different, with lots of competition and resulting innovation, not even a few decades ago.
> A capitalist economy needs the government for some very key laws like upholding private property rights but how does that extend to "mandating interoperable message systems"?
Easy. Apple has a very popular product that they (ab)use to push its users to push their friends to get themselves iPhones. Breaking up their stronghold over iMessage would allow Android users to communicate on their devices with people who own iPhones, and it would lead to a flurry of competing messenger applications.
If the government wants to maintain a free market, that means they need to step in and prevent monopolies, which includes preventing anti-competitive behavior.
Apple is being very anti-competitive with iMessage. It's not just the blocking of Android clients, but the fact that Apple will not let you use any other SMS app on iPhone, so users are locked into iMessage.