> Now it feels like you're saying "this is anti-trust because someone accused them of anti-trust before".

No it's antitrust because they have a failed product, but purely by virtue of shutting out competitors from their platform they have been able to turn three years of flailing around into a win-by-outsourcing. What would Siri's position be like today if they hadn't blocked default voice assistants? Would they be able to recover from their plight to dominate the market just by adopting Google's technology? How would that measure against OpenAI, Anthropic or just using Google directly? This is why it's an antitrust issue.

No other thoughts on my actual questions? You're just addressing one-off sentences from my responses.

"it's antitrust because they have a failed product" is objectively hilarious

> What would Siri's position be like today if they hadn't blocked default voice assistants?

Probably pretty much the same. What would Gemini's position be like today if they hadn't blocked out default voice assistants? You only get Gemini when you use Gemini, just like you only got Siri when you use Siri (up until this deal takes effect). Also Siri has used ChatGPT already, so I'm not even convinced this is a valid criticism. They already didn't block OpenAI from being part of Siri.

> Would they be able to recover from their plight to dominate the market just by adopting Google's technology?

This is relevant how?

> How would that measure against OpenAI, Anthropic or just using Google directly?

How would what measure against other ai models? How would their ability to recover from a lack of investing in a better "homemade" AI model differ if they used OpenAI instead of Gemini? How does that have anything to do with antitrust? That's a business case study type of question. Also, shouldn't they be allowed to recover from their own lack of developing a model by using the best tool available to them?