3 ms·

> There is no reason for there to be such messaging incompatibility between iOS and Android. My feeling is that Apple knows the regulatory winds are shifting ve

> There is no reason for there to be such messaging incompatibility between iOS and Android. My feeling is that Apple knows the regulatory winds are shifting very much against anticompetitive behavior, and their iMessage incompatibility was just looking like the blatant protectionism that it is. iMessage is and always was for iPhone users to communicate with other iPhone users. It will send messages over SMS as a fallback but it was only ever for use in communicating with other iOS devices in the same way iOS is only for Apple devices. I see all arguments to force Apple to open up iMessage as punishing them for building a platform that people want that the majority of the US has bought into. And android is bigger everywhere outside the US. Also Europe has already solved this. If you want to talk to iPhone and android users in Europe you just use WhatsApp or another third-party service. Why must Apple dilute the experience to communicate with folks not on its platform? In electric car charging Tesla built out the super charger network investing billions in service of making their cars more useful. (iMessage is this to iPhone users.) there’s another standard out there or handfuls of other methods of charging cars but the market leader is the super charger network. And wouldn’t you know? Folks are adopting it because Tesla is licensing it but it was their choice. To force Apple to open up iMessage as a protocol to other devices by fiat seems wholly totalitarian and invasive.

kmeisthax 3y ago
>I see all arguments to force Apple to open up iMessage as punishing them for building a platform that people want that the majority of the US has bought into. I see all arguments that Apple shouldn't be forced to open up iMessage (or implement RCS) as forcing me to have a worse phone experience because I didn't buy an iPhone from the company that said "if you want to sideload apps, buy an Android". "Just use a third-party app" is not a solution for people who text with the normal messaging app, and I sure as hell would never beg them to migrate to Whatsapp of all things. >To force Apple to open up iMessage as a protocol to other devices by fiat seems wholly totalitarian and invasive. You have this backwards. The totalitarian and invasive part is when I have to beg Apple for permission to use software they wrote, to sell apps to people using devices they sold, etc. This bootlicker mentality of "it's Apple's devices and software" needs to die. Apple is the totalitarian, the EU is trying to stop tyranny.
- zanderwohl 3y ago
  > I sure as hell would never beg them to migrate to Whatsapp of all things. In many places, most people wouldn't. But Europeans (and some others) seem eager to BCC all their texts to Mark Zuckerberg for some reason.
  - chimeracoder 3y ago
    > In many places, most people wouldn't. But Europeans (and some others) seem eager to BCC all their texts to Mark Zuckerberg for some reason. There is zero evidence that Facebook is engaging in passive mass surveillance of WhatsApp messages.
    - bigfudge 3y ago
      Does that mean your prior for whether it’s happening is strongly against? That seems irrational given the history of both meta and the tech industry and govt generally.
  - AniseAbyss 3y ago
    [dead]
- gigatexal 3y ago
  Absolutely hilarious to see the willingness for folks on this platform to advocate the opening up of something a company built by fiat. Because YOU don't want to adapt you're asking nay advocating the forceful opening up of another platform to do it for you. That's just lazy. Think about it like this: You create a super successful bit of software -- let's call it an operating system -- that runs on a very popular and well designed piece of hardware referred to as an internet phone -- let's call it an iPhone. :-) It takes off. Market share is just above 50% in the country of it's birth. w00t. Now folks that haven't licensed your software by buying the hardware you built it for are out with pitch forks to force you to support other internet connected phones when you already do support them just not in the same way. Messages are still able to be sent to these devices but they don't share the same richness. Why would anyone advocate that something a person with autonomy or a company for that matter be forced by fiat to open up a messaging system or any other bit of kit because the mob wants them to? People are just frustrated and entitled. This isn't open source software. You can't just go and fork it. There are entire companies that have cropped up that are trying to bridge this blue bubble green bubble divide and that's the solution to take. Until, and unless Apple caves and opens up iMessage it seems wholly un-American to force them to do so when there are alternatives be it something like WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, normal SMS and the green bubbles that come with it or moving to an iPhone. I'll never buy the "waaa because I use the built-in app on my Android phone and I want to have blue bubbles when I talk to my friends on iPhones ... waaaaaa!" There are solutions, I've already outlined them. Pick one. > Apple is the totalitarian, the EU is trying to stop tyranny. The EU tends to do this. A successful platform is created and to give shortcuts to other companies to build on that success they force that platform to open to competitors. This is exactly why the EU doesn't have companies that innovate like the US does.
kelnos 3y ago
> In electric car charging Tesla built out the super charger network investing billions in service of making their cars more useful. And if they hadn't done so by choice, they should absolutely have been required to open up that network to all cars. Can you imagine a world (for ICE cars) where you'd have to find a car-manufacturer-specific gas station to refuel? That's ridiculous.
- gigatexal 3y ago
  No. A market winner for gas stations would have emerged and cars would adopt that. Just like is happening with Tesla and their chargers and connectors.

kmeisthax 3y ago

>I see all arguments to force Apple to open up iMessage as punishing them for building a platform that people want that the majority of the US has bought into. I see all arguments that Apple shouldn't be forced to open up iMessage (or implement RCS) as forcing me to have a worse phone experience because I didn't buy an iPhone from the company that said "if you want to sideload apps, buy an Android". "Just use a third-party app" is not a solution for people who text with the normal messaging app, and I sure as hell would never beg them to migrate to Whatsapp of all things. >To force Apple to open up iMessage as a protocol to other devices by fiat seems wholly totalitarian and invasive. You have this backwards. The totalitarian and invasive part is when I have to beg Apple for permission to use software they wrote, to sell apps to people using devices they sold, etc. This bootlicker mentality of "it's Apple's devices and software" needs to die. Apple is the totalitarian, the EU is trying to stop tyranny.

zanderwohl 3y ago
> I sure as hell would never beg them to migrate to Whatsapp of all things. In many places, most people wouldn't. But Europeans (and some others) seem eager to BCC all their texts to Mark Zuckerberg for some reason.
- chimeracoder 3y ago
  > In many places, most people wouldn't. But Europeans (and some others) seem eager to BCC all their texts to Mark Zuckerberg for some reason. There is zero evidence that Facebook is engaging in passive mass surveillance of WhatsApp messages.
  - bigfudge 3y ago
    Does that mean your prior for whether it’s happening is strongly against? That seems irrational given the history of both meta and the tech industry and govt generally.
- AniseAbyss 3y ago
  [dead]
gigatexal 3y ago
Absolutely hilarious to see the willingness for folks on this platform to advocate the opening up of something a company built by fiat. Because YOU don't want to adapt you're asking nay advocating the forceful opening up of another platform to do it for you. That's just lazy. Think about it like this: You create a super successful bit of software -- let's call it an operating system -- that runs on a very popular and well designed piece of hardware referred to as an internet phone -- let's call it an iPhone. :-) It takes off. Market share is just above 50% in the country of it's birth. w00t. Now folks that haven't licensed your software by buying the hardware you built it for are out with pitch forks to force you to support other internet connected phones when you already do support them just not in the same way. Messages are still able to be sent to these devices but they don't share the same richness. Why would anyone advocate that something a person with autonomy or a company for that matter be forced by fiat to open up a messaging system or any other bit of kit because the mob wants them to? People are just frustrated and entitled. This isn't open source software. You can't just go and fork it. There are entire companies that have cropped up that are trying to bridge this blue bubble green bubble divide and that's the solution to take. Until, and unless Apple caves and opens up iMessage it seems wholly un-American to force them to do so when there are alternatives be it something like WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, normal SMS and the green bubbles that come with it or moving to an iPhone. I'll never buy the "waaa because I use the built-in app on my Android phone and I want to have blue bubbles when I talk to my friends on iPhones ... waaaaaa!" There are solutions, I've already outlined them. Pick one. > Apple is the totalitarian, the EU is trying to stop tyranny. The EU tends to do this. A successful platform is created and to give shortcuts to other companies to build on that success they force that platform to open to competitors. This is exactly why the EU doesn't have companies that innovate like the US does.

kelnos 3y ago

> In electric car charging Tesla built out the super charger network investing billions in service of making their cars more useful. And if they hadn't done so by choice, they should absolutely have been required to open up that network to all cars. Can you imagine a world (for ICE cars) where you'd have to find a car-manufacturer-specific gas station to refuel? That's ridiculous.

gigatexal 3y ago
No. A market winner for gas stations would have emerged and cars would adopt that. Just like is happening with Tesla and their chargers and connectors.