3 ms·

It's a bizare mindset. Facebook, WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram - none of them are forced to be interoperable. If I build a messaging protocol, there's no requireme

It's a bizare mindset. Facebook, WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram - none of them are forced to be interoperable. If I build a messaging protocol, there's no requirement for it to be interoperable. Apple does not hold a majority market share in most of the world. Where is this monopoly, and why should they be forced to share the fruit of their labours?

sofixa 3y ago
> Facebook, WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram - none of them are forced to be interoperable Facebook and WhatsApp probably will be forced to be interoperable too. > If I build a messaging protocol, there's no requirement for it to be interoperable. None, but it's the decent thing to do. And since corporations are often incapable of doing the decent thing, they have to be forced. > Apple does not hold a majority market share in most of the world. Where is this monopoly, and why should they be forced to share the fruit of their labours? You're approaching this from an American "if it's not an absolute 99.99%+ monopoly it's fine", instead of the EU "do they have a portion of the market so big they can distort it and prevent competition and thus hurt consumers". Apple are absolutely hurting consumers with their abusive practices, regardless if their share of phone sales is 30% of 60%. So they will be forced to adapt common standards (USB C), open up their walled gardens, etc.
- averageRoyalty 3y ago
  > You're approaching this from an American "if it's not an absolute 99.99%+ monopoly it's fine", instead of the EU "do they have a portion of the market so big they can distort it and prevent competition and thus hurt consumers". I'm not, but thanks for assuming. Apple is part of an oligopoly, which by definition doesn't hold enough market share to prevent competition. The facetious "99.99%+" point is masking the actual relevance. A company with 30% market share does not hold the power to impact the market in a monopolistic manner. In fact, the precedent set is worrying - if market share isn't the primary factor in regulating monopolistic behaviour, what is? Arbitrary, hand-wavey 'oh, they seem big enough' decisions from bereaucrats? I am a fan and supporter of inter-operable protocols. Forcing companies to bend to will around how they can build their software though is inherently stifiling though. I don't see any reason that Apple should be forced to provide iMessage interoperablity any more than Ford should be forced to share transponder information with Audi, so someone who owns both can unlock both cars with a single key.

sofixa 3y ago

> Facebook, WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram - none of them are forced to be interoperable Facebook and WhatsApp probably will be forced to be interoperable too. > If I build a messaging protocol, there's no requirement for it to be interoperable. None, but it's the decent thing to do. And since corporations are often incapable of doing the decent thing, they have to be forced. > Apple does not hold a majority market share in most of the world. Where is this monopoly, and why should they be forced to share the fruit of their labours? You're approaching this from an American "if it's not an absolute 99.99%+ monopoly it's fine", instead of the EU "do they have a portion of the market so big they can distort it and prevent competition and thus hurt consumers". Apple are absolutely hurting consumers with their abusive practices, regardless if their share of phone sales is 30% of 60%. So they will be forced to adapt common standards (USB C), open up their walled gardens, etc.

averageRoyalty 3y ago
> You're approaching this from an American "if it's not an absolute 99.99%+ monopoly it's fine", instead of the EU "do they have a portion of the market so big they can distort it and prevent competition and thus hurt consumers". I'm not, but thanks for assuming. Apple is part of an oligopoly, which by definition doesn't hold enough market share to prevent competition. The facetious "99.99%+" point is masking the actual relevance. A company with 30% market share does not hold the power to impact the market in a monopolistic manner. In fact, the precedent set is worrying - if market share isn't the primary factor in regulating monopolistic behaviour, what is? Arbitrary, hand-wavey 'oh, they seem big enough' decisions from bereaucrats? I am a fan and supporter of inter-operable protocols. Forcing companies to bend to will around how they can build their software though is inherently stifiling though. I don't see any reason that Apple should be forced to provide iMessage interoperablity any more than Ford should be forced to share transponder information with Audi, so someone who owns both can unlock both cars with a single key.