5 ms·

> How does this “harm users”? I get those extras you refer to (read receipts etc) only if i have an iphone and so does the other user. Yet with an open standar

> How does this “harm users”? I get those extras you refer to (read receipts etc) only if i have an iphone and so does the other user. Yet with an open standard i could have those with everyone. Other apps have features imessage does not - yet i can’t intermix whatsapp/snapchat/vibr/telegram etc with my sms messages - apple is holding my sms’ hostage in the imessage app when i might prefer to send sms’ and whatsapp messages from a single app Apple knows the lock-in increases the value of their devices. That’s harm - my iphone costs more.

ubermonkey 5y ago
These complaints seem really entitled to me. You can download and use something else if you don't want to use Apple's Messages app. You can configure Messages to use only SMS and not do iMessage. You seem to be saying that Apple should provide a multiprotocol tool that supports a bunch of platforms and allow you to intermingle them, which is a fine thing to want, but if it's not in Apple's interest to build such a thing I don't know how you can describe their choice as "wrong" or "harmful".
- stale2002 5y ago
  > These complaints seem really entitled to me. No, entitlement is thinking that Apple should be free to break anti-trust law, and engage in illegal anti-competitive practices. We have these law for a reason, and they can and aught be used against companies that engage in anti-competitive practices. > but if it's not in Apple's interest to build such a thing I don't know how you can describe their choice as "wrong" or "harmful". It is wrong and harmful, if it is declared illegally anti-competitive, according to anti-trust law, which they are required to follow.
  - ubermonkey 5y ago
    >No, entitlement is thinking that Apple should be free to break anti-trust law, and engage in illegal anti-competitive practices. Precisely which antitrust statutes is Apple violating? Please be specific.
    - stale2002 5y ago
      The california unfair competition law. Specifically section 17200 which disallows unfair business acts or practices. And specifically what courts have held that this makes illegal would include business acts that "otherwise significantly threatens or harms competition".
      - ubermonkey 5y ago
        You are now obligated to explain how the actions of a player who does not control the market “significantly threatens or harms competition.”
        stale2002 5y ago
        > who does not control the market Not sure where you are getting your incorrect definition of the words "control the market". But based on your other comment, it seems you are also under the very common mistaken idea that a company has to have a "supermajority" of a market for it to fall under anti-trust, or anti-competition law. Thats not true. Even federally, which is has a much less expansive definition of anti-competitive behavior, than california. There have been multiple federal judges who have ruled that even a company with less than 50% of the market, could be covered under anti-competition laws. Its ok though. You probably weren't aware of this, and were just following this very common mistake, about the definition that anti-competition laws use. Most people don't actually read court cases themselves, and just repeat these common mis-understandings. Source: "See Hayden Publ'g Co., Inc. v. Cox Broad. Corp., 730 F.2d 64, 69 n.7 (2d Cir. 1984) ("[A] party may have monopoly power in a particular market, even though its market share is less than 50%."); Broadway Delivery Corp. v. UPS, 651 F.2d 122, 129 (2d Cir. 1981) ("[W]hen the evidence presents a fair jury issue of monopoly power, the jury should not be told that it must find monopoly power lacking below a specified share."); Yoder Bros., Inc. v. Cal.-Fla. Plant Corp., 537 F.2d, 1347, 1367 n.19 (5th Cir. 1976) (rejecting "a rigid rule requiring 50% of the market for a monopolization offense without regard to any other factors")." Thats the source for federal law, and the common legal opinion is that california law is actually much more broad, and prevents more things. But if you want a specific example, that used california law, you could just look at the recent Apple case, which did rule that Apple had engaged in some anti-competitive behavior (even though, it didn't rule that way on every single count. It still ruled that way on at least 1 of them). So a judge, in california, has already ruled that Apple could engage in some illegal anti-competitive behavior, despite not having a "supermajority", even if that court case is going to appeal right now.
  - realprimoh 5y ago
    100% agreed with you. If anti-trust is an actual priority for the government and not just political drama, they would go after Apple first. For a community that's apparently so harsh on big tech monopoly, I'm always surprised by the constant defending of Apple's anti-competitive practices here, even when it's at the expense of other companies. Shows to me that Apple has done a really great job with it's PR, if anything.
    - ubermonkey 5y ago
      Nothing is more clear on this thread than the fact that NEITHER of you understand the words "monopoly" or "antitrust." Apple absolutely does NOT control the mobile market, because to do that you have to have a supermajority market share. They do not. Apple has a platform, not a monopoly.
- kennywinker 5y ago
  All that is required of apple is to allow other apps to access the sms systems of the phone. This would allow any app to replicate the sms-fallback features of imessage. This is something they are actively preventing, not some work they would have to arbitrarily do. I would also be happy if they did that work, but one or the other or both or they’re actively using their power as platform vendor to advantage their service over others
  - ubermonkey 5y ago
    In point of fact this is not "required of Apple." Some part of me would LIKE it if someone would make (in effect) Trillian for iOS, but expecting Apple to do it when it is not in their interest to do so is just entitled.
    - kennywinker 5y ago
      We require companies to do things not in their interest all the time. My argument is that apple is violating anti trust laws, and the principles behind them, and is required but is not currently being compelled to do these things.
      - ubermonkey 5y ago
        Making an argument that Apple is violating anti-trust laws at this point is like arguing that the moon is made of cheese. It's plainly, factually incorrect. There's literally nothing happening here that even approaches the guardrails established by, say, the Sherman Act. It is not a violation of antitrust laws to build a better mousetrap, and require people to do business with you in order to enjoy said mousetrap.
lp0_on_fire 5y ago
> Apple knows the lock-in increases the value of their devices. That’s harm - my iphone costs more. Am I harmed by Ferrari simply because their roadster can go faster than my Ford Pinto? The driver of the Ferrari gets plenty of extras that I don't in my base Ford.
- kennywinker 5y ago
  Bad analogy. This is not a case of competing products. It’s a platform vendor using their position to push their service over competing services. It’s like if fararri sold a car that could run self-driving software from various vendors, but only allowed their in-house self-driving software to make left turns. Sorry Ford Pinto Self Driving software - no left turns! Yes the hardware is capable of it… no you can’t do it only we can.
  - lp0_on_fire 5y ago
    iPhones and Android phones are not made by the same company. They are competing products.
    - kennywinker 5y ago
      Now you’re just being condescending. Apple makes phones (ferraris) that can send sms messages (make left turns). They allow you to runs various messaging apps (self driving software) on your phone, but only allow their app to send sms messages (make left turns).
broknbottle 5y ago
You're only looking at the upfront cost as more. What about the cost of migrating from one Google ADHD fueled messaging solution to the next. When I had my Nexus 4, 5 and 6, I was all in on Hangouts. I saw it as a glimmer of hope when Google finally started merging Hangouts and SMS only to have it ripped apart. I went from Google Voice, SMS and hangouts to pretty much Google Fi + Hangouts and then back to Google Voice, SMS, Hangouts and looking forward to Allo.. Duo.. plus whatever crap Google came up with.. I eventually moved to an iPhone SE and my life became more simple which allowed me to focus on the things I enjoyed vs dicking around with Google and Android nonsense.
SllX 5y ago
You know, I’ve often tried to understand this criticism, but it’s a little bit difficult because I would have to suspend disbelief about how people actually use their phones. It is not uncommon for someone to have installed an assortment of apps from the following, Android or iPhone: Instagram, Facebook Messenger, Snapchat, Viber, Signal, WeChat, LINE, WhatsApp, Hangouts, Slack, Discord, Telegram and maybe someone is still using BBM somewhere. In addition to the iPhone Messages app, I have, and use the messages features of 4 of those, which I think is probably low, and I might be overlooking some. In order to make it all work though, I have notifications turned on for them, and the experience of receiving a push notification from Slack is functionally the same as receiving an iMessage which is functionally the same as receiving an SMS or MMS. In fact, it’s a pretty standard experience across most or all messaging apps, with the key difference that when I tap on the Slack message, it takes me to the relevant chat box in the Slack app, instead of the relevant chat box in the Messages app. It was much the same on Android. This setup and usage pattern is probably the common case; I’m not exactly coloring outside the lines using default phone features that require zero or minimal additional setup (i.e. hitting “Yes” on the notifications prompt) and reflects the behaviors I’ve observed or asked about in how others use their phones. Now on Android, the key difference was that you could designate a different app to receive your messages. At the time that I used Android, Hangouts was the best one I found which was head and shoulders above the trash default on a Galaxy Note II (can’t remember if it was Samsung or Google SMS software by default), but as far as the basic experience of seeing push notifications from messengers aggregated and then deep-linking into the associated app, it was basically the same as my iPhone now. So, what is the advantage here? I thought it was “neat” that I could designate the Hangouts app as my SMS receptacle, but even by that point the dream of one unified phone messenger for everyone a la Adium or Pidgin was dead for me, and is still dead for me. If Apple put in the additional work to build an SMS/MMS access API, they would also be on the hook for supporting it. If at some point in the future I took advantage of this and moved my designated SMS/MMS app to WhatsApp, not all of my iPhone-using contacts necessarily use WhatsApp and I wouldn’t want to see my chat experience degraded for them specifically, so I would probably still be using iMessages, but now the SMS/MMS users would show up in WhatsApp instead, and the “unified inbox” that is notifications center would still be aggregating from 5+ apps and deep-linking me into the relevant conversation threads. So, how do I profit from Apple expending employee time on this feature request? The Messages app is still the best SMS/MMS interface I’ve ever used, and still has the familiar interface I’m used to from Adium/iChat AV, and the “problem” described all up and down the comments here seems almost entirely academic. I think the people that stand to benefit the most are people who have a very specific setup: iPhone users with iMessage disabled on principle + only one other messenger that they could in theory receive SMS/MMS messages in if there was an API. I won’t yuck their yum, and as paying customers they can ask whatever they want from Apple, but I’m a paying customer too and I’ll be honest, I would rather Apple expend employee time on almost anything but that.

ubermonkey 5y ago

These complaints seem really entitled to me. You can download and use something else if you don't want to use Apple's Messages app. You can configure Messages to use only SMS and not do iMessage. You seem to be saying that Apple should provide a multiprotocol tool that supports a bunch of platforms and allow you to intermingle them, which is a fine thing to want, but if it's not in Apple's interest to build such a thing I don't know how you can describe their choice as "wrong" or "harmful".

stale2002 5y ago
> These complaints seem really entitled to me. No, entitlement is thinking that Apple should be free to break anti-trust law, and engage in illegal anti-competitive practices. We have these law for a reason, and they can and aught be used against companies that engage in anti-competitive practices. > but if it's not in Apple's interest to build such a thing I don't know how you can describe their choice as "wrong" or "harmful". It is wrong and harmful, if it is declared illegally anti-competitive, according to anti-trust law, which they are required to follow.
- ubermonkey 5y ago
  >No, entitlement is thinking that Apple should be free to break anti-trust law, and engage in illegal anti-competitive practices. Precisely which antitrust statutes is Apple violating? Please be specific.
  - stale2002 5y ago
    The california unfair competition law. Specifically section 17200 which disallows unfair business acts or practices. And specifically what courts have held that this makes illegal would include business acts that "otherwise significantly threatens or harms competition".
    - ubermonkey 5y ago
      You are now obligated to explain how the actions of a player who does not control the market “significantly threatens or harms competition.”
      - stale2002 5y ago
        > who does not control the market Not sure where you are getting your incorrect definition of the words "control the market". But based on your other comment, it seems you are also under the very common mistaken idea that a company has to have a "supermajority" of a market for it to fall under anti-trust, or anti-competition law. Thats not true. Even federally, which is has a much less expansive definition of anti-competitive behavior, than california. There have been multiple federal judges who have ruled that even a company with less than 50% of the market, could be covered under anti-competition laws. Its ok though. You probably weren't aware of this, and were just following this very common mistake, about the definition that anti-competition laws use. Most people don't actually read court cases themselves, and just repeat these common mis-understandings. Source: "See Hayden Publ'g Co., Inc. v. Cox Broad. Corp., 730 F.2d 64, 69 n.7 (2d Cir. 1984) ("[A] party may have monopoly power in a particular market, even though its market share is less than 50%."); Broadway Delivery Corp. v. UPS, 651 F.2d 122, 129 (2d Cir. 1981) ("[W]hen the evidence presents a fair jury issue of monopoly power, the jury should not be told that it must find monopoly power lacking below a specified share."); Yoder Bros., Inc. v. Cal.-Fla. Plant Corp., 537 F.2d, 1347, 1367 n.19 (5th Cir. 1976) (rejecting "a rigid rule requiring 50% of the market for a monopolization offense without regard to any other factors")." Thats the source for federal law, and the common legal opinion is that california law is actually much more broad, and prevents more things. But if you want a specific example, that used california law, you could just look at the recent Apple case, which did rule that Apple had engaged in some anti-competitive behavior (even though, it didn't rule that way on every single count. It still ruled that way on at least 1 of them). So a judge, in california, has already ruled that Apple could engage in some illegal anti-competitive behavior, despite not having a "supermajority", even if that court case is going to appeal right now.
- realprimoh 5y ago
  100% agreed with you. If anti-trust is an actual priority for the government and not just political drama, they would go after Apple first. For a community that's apparently so harsh on big tech monopoly, I'm always surprised by the constant defending of Apple's anti-competitive practices here, even when it's at the expense of other companies. Shows to me that Apple has done a really great job with it's PR, if anything.
  - ubermonkey 5y ago
    Nothing is more clear on this thread than the fact that NEITHER of you understand the words "monopoly" or "antitrust." Apple absolutely does NOT control the mobile market, because to do that you have to have a supermajority market share. They do not. Apple has a platform, not a monopoly.
kennywinker 5y ago
All that is required of apple is to allow other apps to access the sms systems of the phone. This would allow any app to replicate the sms-fallback features of imessage. This is something they are actively preventing, not some work they would have to arbitrarily do. I would also be happy if they did that work, but one or the other or both or they’re actively using their power as platform vendor to advantage their service over others
- ubermonkey 5y ago
  In point of fact this is not "required of Apple." Some part of me would LIKE it if someone would make (in effect) Trillian for iOS, but expecting Apple to do it when it is not in their interest to do so is just entitled.
  - kennywinker 5y ago
    We require companies to do things not in their interest all the time. My argument is that apple is violating anti trust laws, and the principles behind them, and is required but is not currently being compelled to do these things.
    - ubermonkey 5y ago
      Making an argument that Apple is violating anti-trust laws at this point is like arguing that the moon is made of cheese. It's plainly, factually incorrect. There's literally nothing happening here that even approaches the guardrails established by, say, the Sherman Act. It is not a violation of antitrust laws to build a better mousetrap, and require people to do business with you in order to enjoy said mousetrap.

lp0_on_fire 5y ago

> Apple knows the lock-in increases the value of their devices. That’s harm - my iphone costs more. Am I harmed by Ferrari simply because their roadster can go faster than my Ford Pinto? The driver of the Ferrari gets plenty of extras that I don't in my base Ford.

kennywinker 5y ago
Bad analogy. This is not a case of competing products. It’s a platform vendor using their position to push their service over competing services. It’s like if fararri sold a car that could run self-driving software from various vendors, but only allowed their in-house self-driving software to make left turns. Sorry Ford Pinto Self Driving software - no left turns! Yes the hardware is capable of it… no you can’t do it only we can.
- lp0_on_fire 5y ago
  iPhones and Android phones are not made by the same company. They are competing products.
  - kennywinker 5y ago
    Now you’re just being condescending. Apple makes phones (ferraris) that can send sms messages (make left turns). They allow you to runs various messaging apps (self driving software) on your phone, but only allow their app to send sms messages (make left turns).

broknbottle 5y ago

You're only looking at the upfront cost as more. What about the cost of migrating from one Google ADHD fueled messaging solution to the next. When I had my Nexus 4, 5 and 6, I was all in on Hangouts. I saw it as a glimmer of hope when Google finally started merging Hangouts and SMS only to have it ripped apart. I went from Google Voice, SMS and hangouts to pretty much Google Fi + Hangouts and then back to Google Voice, SMS, Hangouts and looking forward to Allo.. Duo.. plus whatever crap Google came up with.. I eventually moved to an iPhone SE and my life became more simple which allowed me to focus on the things I enjoyed vs dicking around with Google and Android nonsense.

SllX 5y ago

You know, I’ve often tried to understand this criticism, but it’s a little bit difficult because I would have to suspend disbelief about how people actually use their phones. It is not uncommon for someone to have installed an assortment of apps from the following, Android or iPhone: Instagram, Facebook Messenger, Snapchat, Viber, Signal, WeChat, LINE, WhatsApp, Hangouts, Slack, Discord, Telegram and maybe someone is still using BBM somewhere. In addition to the iPhone Messages app, I have, and use the messages features of 4 of those, which I think is probably low, and I might be overlooking some. In order to make it all work though, I have notifications turned on for them, and the experience of receiving a push notification from Slack is functionally the same as receiving an iMessage which is functionally the same as receiving an SMS or MMS. In fact, it’s a pretty standard experience across most or all messaging apps, with the key difference that when I tap on the Slack message, it takes me to the relevant chat box in the Slack app, instead of the relevant chat box in the Messages app. It was much the same on Android. This setup and usage pattern is probably the common case; I’m not exactly coloring outside the lines using default phone features that require zero or minimal additional setup (i.e. hitting “Yes” on the notifications prompt) and reflects the behaviors I’ve observed or asked about in how others use their phones. Now on Android, the key difference was that you could designate a different app to receive your messages. At the time that I used Android, Hangouts was the best one I found which was head and shoulders above the trash default on a Galaxy Note II (can’t remember if it was Samsung or Google SMS software by default), but as far as the basic experience of seeing push notifications from messengers aggregated and then deep-linking into the associated app, it was basically the same as my iPhone now. So, what is the advantage here? I thought it was “neat” that I could designate the Hangouts app as my SMS receptacle, but even by that point the dream of one unified phone messenger for everyone a la Adium or Pidgin was dead for me, and is still dead for me. If Apple put in the additional work to build an SMS/MMS access API, they would also be on the hook for supporting it. If at some point in the future I took advantage of this and moved my designated SMS/MMS app to WhatsApp, not all of my iPhone-using contacts necessarily use WhatsApp and I wouldn’t want to see my chat experience degraded for them specifically, so I would probably still be using iMessages, but now the SMS/MMS users would show up in WhatsApp instead, and the “unified inbox” that is notifications center would still be aggregating from 5+ apps and deep-linking me into the relevant conversation threads. So, how do I profit from Apple expending employee time on this feature request? The Messages app is still the best SMS/MMS interface I’ve ever used, and still has the familiar interface I’m used to from Adium/iChat AV, and the “problem” described all up and down the comments here seems almost entirely academic. I think the people that stand to benefit the most are people who have a very specific setup: iPhone users with iMessage disabled on principle + only one other messenger that they could in theory receive SMS/MMS messages in if there was an API. I won’t yuck their yum, and as paying customers they can ask whatever they want from Apple, but I’m a paying customer too and I’ll be honest, I would rather Apple expend employee time on almost anything but that.