> What if Apple stopped allowing you to use an iPhone if you worked at Google?

This wouldn't be remotely comparable. This is targeting of a competitor's employees, not targeting a competitor's subsidiaries.

If you want to go the Apple-Google route a better comparison would be that this is like Apple refusing to allow you to hook up an Air Tag on an Android phone. Which is something that they do, in fact, do.

> this is like Apple refusing to allow you to hook up an Air Tag on an Android phone. Which is something that they do, in fact, do.

Apple does this and more and they are in many anti-trust problems because of that. As they actually monopolistic.

"They didn't care that they were providing launch capabilities for a competitor"

Yeah because another internet provider did not have SpaceX reusable rocket technology

its not really quite the same you know

If SpaceX was launching every rocket at a loss then they would absolutely care about a competitor taking advantage of it.

I think the nature of your two examples, along with the one from the news, is too different from each other for the analogy to really hold. These situations can only be judged on a case-by-case basis.

Do you understand that data can be used for training?

Another way this isn't comparable is that the training data is critical for the services each provides. Seeing answers Claude gives (at scale, for free) would be a huge competitive advantage to OpenAI, whereas Apple Mail seeing the email you send via Gmail wouldn't convey any competitive advantage in email, for example.