3 ms·
In the case of iMessage, Apple has a competitive advantage that stifles competition, not enhances it. Setting a baseline for interoperability is not the same a
by JoeNr76 4y ago
In the case of iMessage, Apple has a competitive advantage that stifles competition, not enhances it.
Setting a baseline for interoperability is not the same as requiring them all to be the same.
- hellojesus 4y agoPeople vote with their dollars. If people don't like the dumb messaging, they can move to a different platform. With infinite amounts of other free apps, why are regulations necessary? Let people decide for themselves.
- ClumsyPilot 4y agoSo people who have no dollars get no vote and deserve nothing? Should we take the same approach with clean air and see what happens?
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> people who have no dollars get no vote and deserve nothing? On how messaging works on thousand-dollar phones? Yes.
- ClumsyPilot 4y agoNice If your were in charge when the telephone network was designed, poor people would not even be able to make a phonecall to their middleclass neighbour or senator, they'd have to buy a special Rich People phone
- jaywalk 4y agoYour hypothetical would make sense if iPhones didn't support regular phone calls, SMS, and every other messaging app out there. All people without iPhones can't do is send blue bubble messages to iPhone users. That's literally it.
- smoldesu 4y agoThe same could be said for Disneyland, but it's not an excuse to let Disney engage in lawless conduct as long as it's within the park.
- hellojesus 4y agoYes, but users choose to visit sites like they choose to visit a park. They would know the risks before going. The lawlessness described here isn't harm on a third party against their consent. It's fully known by both parties at the time of the voluntary transaction.