13 ms·

All this time I've been assuming that Apple keeps iMessage as iOS/Mac only as an anticompetitive tactic, but that this would never be admitted in writing and th

by ummonk 4y ago

All this time I've been assuming that Apple keeps iMessage as iOS/Mac only as an anticompetitive tactic, but that this would never be admitted in writing and they'd be smart enough to only talk about verbally in unrecorded meetings. These emails actually make me change my mind on both aspects. First, apparently they were at one point undisciplined enough to talk about risky topics in writing. Second, the reasoning in those emails is actually very reasonable. iMessage was a non-revenue-generating service that cost them money and was funded by sales of Apple devices, so it's being offered as a service to users of Apple products. This isn't unfair behavior on Apple's part.

Gigachad 4y ago
The one defence I can think of is that keeping it tied to apple devices means they can ban spammers more effectively since there is a real cost to getting back on the network.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mrtksn 4y ago
The reasoning is quite sound, yes, but it doesn't consider the long term implications. No one outside of the USA is using iMessage and they are one regulation away from losing it in the USA too. Also, outside of the USA if they piss off Mark Zuckerberg enough they can lose the rest of the world because who would want a phone that doesn't have WhatsApp? It also demonstrates the harm with these lock-in strategies very well. They are concerned that their product wouldn't be compelling enough for people to buy it. Wouldn't be better if they owned the messaging platform and provide the full experience for iOS due to the fact that they control the device? Owning the platform would have given them also the ability to get revenue from non-Apple users through things like payments and other services that can be integrated into the app. In its current situation, it might be the case that Apple has won the battle but might end up losing the war.
- onethought 4y ago
  Why is WhatsApp special? iMessages is used a lot outside US. Why is there a “messenger war”? Like what’s the end game? Why do you want people using your free messages product? Data? But e2e encryption and privacy are primary features… I don’t get it
  - remus 4y ago
    > Why is there a “messenger war”? Like what’s the end game? Why do you want people using your free messages product? Data? But e2e encryption and privacy are primary features… I don’t get it Messenger apps have powerful network effects. Imagine all your friends are on iPhone and use iMessage, if you're the only android user in that circle you're getting a degraded experience so there's a strong incentive to move to iphone which means more sales for apple.
    - onethought 4y ago
      So that makes sense for Apple. But it doesn't make sense for literally every other messenger app. Why do they bother existing? (i.e 1 billion people use Messenger X, is the game plan that some one else with an actual business model wants those billion users so they buy it... so Messenger apps are a marketing channel?)
      - mainfield 4y ago
        For WhatsApp/Facebook the business model is: access to your contacts
        winnie_ua 4y ago
        And I am so confused, that nobody is bothered with it, and so many users of whatsapp. I really distrust Signal for it forcing to add contacts only by phone, not hy sone user ids/nick-names
      - dwaite 4y ago
karmakaze 4y ago
I remember iTunes and Safari on Windows being less polished 'by design' to nudge users who were able to experience them on Mac to think the hardware/OS was better.
- post-it 4y ago
  iCloud is awful on Windows to this day. Basically unusable unless you have < 100 files.
- pazimzadeh 4y ago
  And Microsoft Office for Mac is never quite as snappy and quick to launch as on Windows.
  - vetinari 4y ago
    I actually like MS Office for Mac more than the Windows version. It has even the classic menu! It doesn't have all the features (esp. Excel) that the Windows version has.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
hardware2win 4y ago
What??? The last email makes it clear that they wanted to keep lock-in in apple's ecosystem
- mirekrusin 4y ago
  They never promised or owe to anybody presence on competitor platforms. Personally I prefer they don't do google style starting 100 projects and killing 99 out of them but focus on what they do best. I also can't care less about iMessages on Android, I'm using WhatsApp to ping my wife/family - probably like most.
- giogio 4y ago
  Yeah Federighi made it pretty clear. I'm a little surprised Eddie Cue didn't seem to realize how significant giving up imessage exclusivity could be. But I'm guessing in 2013 there were bigger differences in iPhones vs Android phones, wasn't as clear that eventually it would be a significant reason why someone might choose one over the other. Giving up iMessage in 2013 would be different than giving it up today
sph 4y ago
Read the other emails linked below. Craig Federighi explicitly says that if iMessage is on Android fewer families will choose iPhone. Cost was a reason, but wanting to maintain platform lock-in was another you seem to dismiss.
newaccount74 4y ago
Every tech company tries to lock in their customers all the time, and then turn over backwards and talk about how they are only doing it because it is in the customers interest. It was nice to read the candid exchange between top Apple execs. It was honest, and it was understandable. It's unfortunate that Craig Federighi felt the need to give it some bullshit spin instead of being honest in the interview with Joanna Stern (further down the tweet thread). I wish companies were just honest in their public marketing. I know that a lot of decisions from Apple are just about protecting their profits (eg. building pretty sweet virtualisation tech into macOS, but then limiting it to 2 macOS VMs per computer even if your Mac could easily run dozens of them). It would be nice if they didn't always try to tell some bullshit story how that was better for the person buying their hardware.
gernb 4y ago
Phones would be useless if they were not interoperable. It's fine to have a proprietary messaging system but at some point, when it gets large enough, it needs to play nice.
winnie_ua 4y ago
If you read last mail, it states clearly, that they don't want parents to buy android for their kids, and iMessage would be lock-in.

by ummonk 4y ago

Gigachad 4y ago

The one defence I can think of is that keeping it tied to apple devices means they can ban spammers more effectively since there is a real cost to getting back on the network.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

mrtksn 4y ago

The reasoning is quite sound, yes, but it doesn't consider the long term implications. No one outside of the USA is using iMessage and they are one regulation away from losing it in the USA too. Also, outside of the USA if they piss off Mark Zuckerberg enough they can lose the rest of the world because who would want a phone that doesn't have WhatsApp? It also demonstrates the harm with these lock-in strategies very well. They are concerned that their product wouldn't be compelling enough for people to buy it. Wouldn't be better if they owned the messaging platform and provide the full experience for iOS due to the fact that they control the device? Owning the platform would have given them also the ability to get revenue from non-Apple users through things like payments and other services that can be integrated into the app. In its current situation, it might be the case that Apple has won the battle but might end up losing the war.

onethought 4y ago
Why is WhatsApp special? iMessages is used a lot outside US. Why is there a “messenger war”? Like what’s the end game? Why do you want people using your free messages product? Data? But e2e encryption and privacy are primary features… I don’t get it
- remus 4y ago
  > Why is there a “messenger war”? Like what’s the end game? Why do you want people using your free messages product? Data? But e2e encryption and privacy are primary features… I don’t get it Messenger apps have powerful network effects. Imagine all your friends are on iPhone and use iMessage, if you're the only android user in that circle you're getting a degraded experience so there's a strong incentive to move to iphone which means more sales for apple.
  - onethought 4y ago
    So that makes sense for Apple. But it doesn't make sense for literally every other messenger app. Why do they bother existing? (i.e 1 billion people use Messenger X, is the game plan that some one else with an actual business model wants those billion users so they buy it... so Messenger apps are a marketing channel?)
    - mainfield 4y ago
      For WhatsApp/Facebook the business model is: access to your contacts
      - winnie_ua 4y ago
        And I am so confused, that nobody is bothered with it, and so many users of whatsapp. I really distrust Signal for it forcing to add contacts only by phone, not hy sone user ids/nick-names
    - dwaite 4y ago

karmakaze 4y ago

I remember iTunes and Safari on Windows being less polished 'by design' to nudge users who were able to experience them on Mac to think the hardware/OS was better.

post-it 4y ago
iCloud is awful on Windows to this day. Basically unusable unless you have < 100 files.
pazimzadeh 4y ago
And Microsoft Office for Mac is never quite as snappy and quick to launch as on Windows.
- vetinari 4y ago
  I actually like MS Office for Mac more than the Windows version. It has even the classic menu! It doesn't have all the features (esp. Excel) that the Windows version has.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

hardware2win 4y ago

What??? The last email makes it clear that they wanted to keep lock-in in apple's ecosystem

mirekrusin 4y ago
They never promised or owe to anybody presence on competitor platforms. Personally I prefer they don't do google style starting 100 projects and killing 99 out of them but focus on what they do best. I also can't care less about iMessages on Android, I'm using WhatsApp to ping my wife/family - probably like most.
giogio 4y ago
Yeah Federighi made it pretty clear. I'm a little surprised Eddie Cue didn't seem to realize how significant giving up imessage exclusivity could be. But I'm guessing in 2013 there were bigger differences in iPhones vs Android phones, wasn't as clear that eventually it would be a significant reason why someone might choose one over the other. Giving up iMessage in 2013 would be different than giving it up today

sph 4y ago

Read the other emails linked below. Craig Federighi explicitly says that if iMessage is on Android fewer families will choose iPhone. Cost was a reason, but wanting to maintain platform lock-in was another you seem to dismiss.

newaccount74 4y ago

Every tech company tries to lock in their customers all the time, and then turn over backwards and talk about how they are only doing it because it is in the customers interest. It was nice to read the candid exchange between top Apple execs. It was honest, and it was understandable. It's unfortunate that Craig Federighi felt the need to give it some bullshit spin instead of being honest in the interview with Joanna Stern (further down the tweet thread). I wish companies were just honest in their public marketing. I know that a lot of decisions from Apple are just about protecting their profits (eg. building pretty sweet virtualisation tech into macOS, but then limiting it to 2 macOS VMs per computer even if your Mac could easily run dozens of them). It would be nice if they didn't always try to tell some bullshit story how that was better for the person buying their hardware.

gernb 4y ago

Phones would be useless if they were not interoperable. It's fine to have a proprietary messaging system but at some point, when it gets large enough, it needs to play nice.

winnie_ua 4y ago

If you read last mail, it states clearly, that they don't want parents to buy android for their kids, and iMessage would be lock-in.