6 ms·

I don't know what you'd have them do that doesn't result in them giving up a competitive advantage. They're a minority phone player. They have their own messag

I don't know what you'd have them do that doesn't result in them giving up a competitive advantage. They're a minority phone player. They have their own messaging platform as a feature of their mobile OS, so making it available to other platforms is anathema to their own business goals and success of their own platform. I don't feel hurt or victimized by their choices here. It's not in my way at all.

partiallypro 5y ago
Minority phone maker? Apple is the biggest corporation on earth...and make up the majority of smart phone sales in the US. Yes they would have to give up a competitive advantage. That's the point.
- mindfulmore 5y ago
  Pretty sure OP meant that they're a minority in terms of market share. The number of Android phones being used is probably 5x that of iPhones.
- ubermonkey 5y ago
  Yes. They are, by the plain meaning of the words, a minority player in mobile phone sales globally by a HUGE margin. The most recent data for 2021 suggest that sales for last were split pretty evenly in the US, but overall usage still heavily favors Android. They DO have a much bigger footprint in some desirable segments of that market, but overall they're a minority player. By definition, minority players do not enjoy any monopolistic power. They are under no obligation to give up any competitive advantage until and unless they exhibit true, market-manipulating monopolistic behavior.
  - mthoms 5y ago
    Just because they don’t have a majority share of global sales doesn’t make them a “minority player”. That’s not really what that term means. The term “minority player” means they have less influence/importance than the “major players”. Though, to be fair I can see how that could be confusing (because English).
    - ubermonkey 5y ago
      Wow, that's a rhetorical mess! "Minority doesn't mean minority" is some serious doublethink. iOS is a minority player in the mobile phone market by a wide margin globally, and by a small margin in the US. End of.
      - mthoms 5y ago
        I really think you're conflating the (subjective) expression about an entity being a "major/minor player" with the factual claim of a company having a majority or minority marketshare. They're different, but you're treating them the same. Hence, confusion. Major Player: an important and successful company, especially when compared with other, smaller companies in the same type of business or industry. Source https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/major-player https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/major-pl... Ergo, the vast majority of people would agree that Apple is a "major player" in the phone industry despite having a "minority marketshare". PS. There's nothing wrong with the point you're making, I'm only pointing out that its confusing to others because of the terminology you're using.
  - jacob019 5y ago
    They are #2 globally, behind Samsung. 15.2% of the global smartphone market to Samsung's 20.8%. They are #1 in the US, 47% to Samsung's 34%. That is a dominant position. Apple would be wise to avoid the appearance of abusing that position and inviting regulatory oversight.
    - 2muchcoffeeman 5y ago
      I guess another way to look at it is by platform dominance though. Android is 85% globally. Apple is only a majority in some English speaking countries. And even then they barely have a majority. It’s a fairly even split between Apple and Android. Most people I know are brand agnostic but platform loyal. Google could have captured half of all English speaking countries and 85% globally if not for their incompetence. They still could since here we are complaining about Google’s messaging apps.
    - ubermonkey 5y ago
      You're cherrypicking by conflating "manufacturer" with "operating system." Yes, Apple has a bigger market share than ONE Android handset maker. But if you compare by platform, iOS is, in the US, more or less even with Android. Globally, it remains a small minority. 47% of a market is NOT a dominant position. It's a GOOD position, but it's not strong enough to control the market in ways that typically produce antitrust interest.
  - partiallypro 5y ago
    They are not a minority player in the US, which is what we are talking about. That's like arguing Facebook isn't a monopoly becaues it doesn't exist in China. It's a nonsense argument.
jacob019 5y ago
There is nothing stopping Apple from implementing RCS. They can continue to go their own way with Apple devices, and support RCS for interop with non-Apple devices and for users who would rather not route their messaging through Apple. That they choose not to support a standard protocol as a competitive advantage is exactly the problem. Imagine if you bought a 4K television that had AppleTV built in, and then you find out that the 4K feature is only available if you use the built in AppleTV interface, and HDMI is limited to 1080P. There is a case to be made that such anti-competitive behavior is illegal.
- threeseed 5y ago
  a) RCS is not a standard and doesn't support end to end encryption. Apple has every right not to bother implementing it. b) There is no such case that such behaviour is illegal or that it is impacting competition in the messaging space. The fact that WhatsApp, Telegram, Kakao, Line etc are so popular is indicative of this fact.
  - jacob019 5y ago
    RCS is a carrier standard. It does not support end-to-end encryption. No one is suggesting that Apple stop allowing Apple users to communicate via iMessage. WhatsApp and friends are not baked in as the default messaging app in the dominant smartphone platform. Remember the Microsoft antitrust charges? It seems silly now, but there was a case made then and there is a similar case to be made here.
    - kergonath 5y ago
      > Remember the Microsoft antitrust charges? It seems silly now, but there was a case made then and there is a similar case to be made here. Microsoft was accused of using their Windows monopoly to put Netscape out of business. Which monopoly is Apple using to what end, and who are they putting out of business? Microsoft’s behaviour resulted in the Great Web Stagnation in the late 1990s and early 2000s, but there is nothing of the sort here. Facebook, WhatsApp, Signal, Discord, and Telegram seem to be doing ok. So who is being harmed here? I don’t buy the RCS argument. RCS is insecure and inferior to all the platforms I mentioned, and pushed only by carriers (who I am sure have the users’ interests at heart) and Google. Also, if we follow your logic, Apple needs to authorise other apps to process SMSes. That would be the equivalent to Microsoft letting users change the default browser. Microsoft was never forced to port IE to any other platform.
lupire 5y ago
You are describing anti-competitive behavior: Harming their own customers and others to protect marketshare. A messaging platform is for communication, not just for the individual customer.
- ubermonkey 5y ago
  No, I am very clearly not. Everything a company does to protect its position isn't "anticompetitive behavior." That term has a specific meaning in US law, and applies generally only to situations where market manipulation is being attempted (or committed) by a monopolist or a consortium of firms large enough to act as one. See https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/anticompetitive-practices https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/anticompetitive-practices Neither of those situations applies to iOS and iMessage.

partiallypro 5y ago

Minority phone maker? Apple is the biggest corporation on earth...and make up the majority of smart phone sales in the US. Yes they would have to give up a competitive advantage. That's the point.

mindfulmore 5y ago
Pretty sure OP meant that they're a minority in terms of market share. The number of Android phones being used is probably 5x that of iPhones.
ubermonkey 5y ago
Yes. They are, by the plain meaning of the words, a minority player in mobile phone sales globally by a HUGE margin. The most recent data for 2021 suggest that sales for last were split pretty evenly in the US, but overall usage still heavily favors Android. They DO have a much bigger footprint in some desirable segments of that market, but overall they're a minority player. By definition, minority players do not enjoy any monopolistic power. They are under no obligation to give up any competitive advantage until and unless they exhibit true, market-manipulating monopolistic behavior.
- mthoms 5y ago
  Just because they don’t have a majority share of global sales doesn’t make them a “minority player”. That’s not really what that term means. The term “minority player” means they have less influence/importance than the “major players”. Though, to be fair I can see how that could be confusing (because English).
  - ubermonkey 5y ago
    Wow, that's a rhetorical mess! "Minority doesn't mean minority" is some serious doublethink. iOS is a minority player in the mobile phone market by a wide margin globally, and by a small margin in the US. End of.
    - mthoms 5y ago
      I really think you're conflating the (subjective) expression about an entity being a "major/minor player" with the factual claim of a company having a majority or minority marketshare. They're different, but you're treating them the same. Hence, confusion. Major Player: an important and successful company, especially when compared with other, smaller companies in the same type of business or industry. Source https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/major-player https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/major-pl... Ergo, the vast majority of people would agree that Apple is a "major player" in the phone industry despite having a "minority marketshare". PS. There's nothing wrong with the point you're making, I'm only pointing out that its confusing to others because of the terminology you're using.
- jacob019 5y ago
  They are #2 globally, behind Samsung. 15.2% of the global smartphone market to Samsung's 20.8%. They are #1 in the US, 47% to Samsung's 34%. That is a dominant position. Apple would be wise to avoid the appearance of abusing that position and inviting regulatory oversight.
  - 2muchcoffeeman 5y ago
    I guess another way to look at it is by platform dominance though. Android is 85% globally. Apple is only a majority in some English speaking countries. And even then they barely have a majority. It’s a fairly even split between Apple and Android. Most people I know are brand agnostic but platform loyal. Google could have captured half of all English speaking countries and 85% globally if not for their incompetence. They still could since here we are complaining about Google’s messaging apps.
  - ubermonkey 5y ago
    You're cherrypicking by conflating "manufacturer" with "operating system." Yes, Apple has a bigger market share than ONE Android handset maker. But if you compare by platform, iOS is, in the US, more or less even with Android. Globally, it remains a small minority. 47% of a market is NOT a dominant position. It's a GOOD position, but it's not strong enough to control the market in ways that typically produce antitrust interest.
- partiallypro 5y ago
  They are not a minority player in the US, which is what we are talking about. That's like arguing Facebook isn't a monopoly becaues it doesn't exist in China. It's a nonsense argument.

jacob019 5y ago

There is nothing stopping Apple from implementing RCS. They can continue to go their own way with Apple devices, and support RCS for interop with non-Apple devices and for users who would rather not route their messaging through Apple. That they choose not to support a standard protocol as a competitive advantage is exactly the problem. Imagine if you bought a 4K television that had AppleTV built in, and then you find out that the 4K feature is only available if you use the built in AppleTV interface, and HDMI is limited to 1080P. There is a case to be made that such anti-competitive behavior is illegal.

threeseed 5y ago
a) RCS is not a standard and doesn't support end to end encryption. Apple has every right not to bother implementing it. b) There is no such case that such behaviour is illegal or that it is impacting competition in the messaging space. The fact that WhatsApp, Telegram, Kakao, Line etc are so popular is indicative of this fact.
- jacob019 5y ago
  RCS is a carrier standard. It does not support end-to-end encryption. No one is suggesting that Apple stop allowing Apple users to communicate via iMessage. WhatsApp and friends are not baked in as the default messaging app in the dominant smartphone platform. Remember the Microsoft antitrust charges? It seems silly now, but there was a case made then and there is a similar case to be made here.
  - kergonath 5y ago
    > Remember the Microsoft antitrust charges? It seems silly now, but there was a case made then and there is a similar case to be made here. Microsoft was accused of using their Windows monopoly to put Netscape out of business. Which monopoly is Apple using to what end, and who are they putting out of business? Microsoft’s behaviour resulted in the Great Web Stagnation in the late 1990s and early 2000s, but there is nothing of the sort here. Facebook, WhatsApp, Signal, Discord, and Telegram seem to be doing ok. So who is being harmed here? I don’t buy the RCS argument. RCS is insecure and inferior to all the platforms I mentioned, and pushed only by carriers (who I am sure have the users’ interests at heart) and Google. Also, if we follow your logic, Apple needs to authorise other apps to process SMSes. That would be the equivalent to Microsoft letting users change the default browser. Microsoft was never forced to port IE to any other platform.

lupire 5y ago

You are describing anti-competitive behavior: Harming their own customers and others to protect marketshare. A messaging platform is for communication, not just for the individual customer.

ubermonkey 5y ago
No, I am very clearly not. Everything a company does to protect its position isn't "anticompetitive behavior." That term has a specific meaning in US law, and applies generally only to situations where market manipulation is being attempted (or committed) by a monopolist or a consortium of firms large enough to act as one. See https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/anticompetitive-practices https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/anticompetitive-practices Neither of those situations applies to iOS and iMessage.