6 ms·

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

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.
        ubermonkey 5y ago
- 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.

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.
      - ubermonkey 5y ago
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.