Microsoft, by comparison, OWNED desktop computing in the 90s. Apple was on the ropes badly, and Linux wasn't viable for most people. And they used that dominance to attempt to strangle the open web in its crib. People literally had no where else to go.

Apple has nothing like that control today. Android enjoys a healthy chunk of the market. A host of other messaging tools exist if you don't like iMessage. You can avoid using Apple's tech at every turn if you like (and I know many people who do, as a matter of personal policy).

This is not a situation that warrants governmental intervention. This is a situation where the government is overreaching, and if they succeed the precedent will be set that Washington gets to decide what features a vendor can control on their own platforms. That's not a good place to be.

I agree that the government has a weak case - but they can make their case in the court of law. And to another degree in the court of public opinion.

There is a case to be made for constraining the dominant consumer tech company. Consider this hypothetical scenario. A tech company has a one year lead over their competitors because their hardware and software is objectively one year ahead. And let's project that every year that lead grows by a couple months. I assume that all would agree that this is a huge threat.

What government oversight and intervention is warranted to address this threat?

In my opinion, all the reasons that the government gave to call Apple a monopoly are just weak rationalizations they've come up with that still hold enough legal validity, and allow them (them being the powers that be who perceive the real long-term threat) to start slowing Apple down.

I do not. I do not think most people would agree with that. A lead in one area is historically difficult to sustain and extend into another. When attempts have been made that could have been successful, they were made on the back of actual market-controlling dominance, which Apple manifestly and obviously does not have here.