4 ms·

Ma Bell had a monopoly. This is one messaging app on one brand of phone. Nothing stops you from using another phone, or multiple or other messaging apps. And m

Ma Bell had a monopoly. This is one messaging app on one brand of phone. Nothing stops you from using another phone, or multiple or other messaging apps. And messaging apps aren’t restricted by a “default” in quite the same way a web browser is. I have friends on WhatsApp and Signal and Instagram and I message them all without any appreciable difference in effort.

josephcsible 3y ago
As long as iMessage doesn't support federation, Apple has a monopoly on it too. If not, then Ma Bell wouldn't have had a monopoly either, since you could say mailing letters was a competitor to telephones.
- madeofpalk 3y ago
  That's nonsensical. Reddit has a monopoly on Reddit - of course it does. Any service online is under no obligation to allow for widespread interpoperation - that would be madness.
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    > Any service online is under no obligation to allow for widespread interpoperation - that would be madness. Lol, "madness". The Digital Services Act in the EU would like a word.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - nicce 3y ago
      You are confusing with Digital Markets Act. https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/about-dma_en https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/about-dma_en
    - GeekyBear 3y ago
      Although the final determination is not yet locked in, the word is that Bing and iMessage have been found to not be popular enough in the EU to fall under the DMA. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-06/apple-imessage-set-to-avoid-eu-s-digital-dominance-crackdown https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-06/apple-ime...
      - nicce 3y ago
        You can see full list of current decisions here without paywall: https://digital-markets-act-cases.ec.europa.eu/gatekeepers https://digital-markets-act-cases.ec.europa.eu/gatekeepers
  - unyttigfjelltol 3y ago
    It's madness for monopolistic communications providers to refuse interoperability.
    - madeofpalk 3y ago
      iMessage is far from monopolistic. Messages on iPhone is interoperable with any other mobile device - it supports SMS!
      - V-eHGsd_ 3y ago
        > it supports SMS! and isn't RCS support coming too?
- tedunangst 3y ago
  And here you are, posting on a site with a monopoly on HN comments.
justapassenger 3y ago
[dead]
bscphil 3y ago
You can run that argument the other way. It's desirable for there to be only one system of phone lines installed everywhere, where anyone with a telephone number can call anyone else. It would be desirable for there to be only one e2e encrypted "double-ratchet" messaging protocol, for the same reasons. In the case of Bell, the universal lines already existed, the problem was that Bell owned them all and wouldn't let anyone else use them. That was a "monopoly" so there was an argument for breaking it up so that everyone could use the lines. In the case of iMessage (and others), the creators are deliberately building out many different incompatible "lines", and not letting anyone else use those lines. And now people are coming along and saying because it's not a "monopoly", we can't do anything about that. But the real goal was the same in both cases - making universal communication possible. That's what we're all frustrated about here, and the fact that there are dozens of apps trying to wall off competitors is part of the cause of that. Apple is a target because iMessage is the largest such "private line" in the United States.
- viraptor 3y ago
  > It's desirable for there to be only one system What gets a bit lost in the conversation for iMessage is that the protocol/infra and implementation get merged into one. This is approached in many countries for telcos by splitting the companies providing the lines from the companies providing service on top of them. It's not perfect, but it's better than previous approaches.
CivBase 3y ago
Right. This is much more similar to MS and Internet Explorer back in 98. Interestingly enough, one of the outcomes of that case was IE for the Mac.
- jonhohle 3y ago
  It required no ongoing infrastructure for people to use IE either on Windows or on Mac. iMessage requires servers, bandwidth, and operators.
  - CivBase 3y ago
    Yeah, they're definitely not identical. But from an antitrust perspective I think the MS case is at least much more similar.
ldarby 3y ago
>. Nothing stops you from using another phone, Do you realise phones cost money and not everyone can afford an iPhone?

josephcsible 3y ago

As long as iMessage doesn't support federation, Apple has a monopoly on it too. If not, then Ma Bell wouldn't have had a monopoly either, since you could say mailing letters was a competitor to telephones.

madeofpalk 3y ago
That's nonsensical. Reddit has a monopoly on Reddit - of course it does. Any service online is under no obligation to allow for widespread interpoperation - that would be madness.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  > Any service online is under no obligation to allow for widespread interpoperation - that would be madness. Lol, "madness". The Digital Services Act in the EU would like a word.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - nicce 3y ago
    You are confusing with Digital Markets Act. https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/about-dma_en https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/about-dma_en
  - GeekyBear 3y ago
    Although the final determination is not yet locked in, the word is that Bing and iMessage have been found to not be popular enough in the EU to fall under the DMA. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-06/apple-imessage-set-to-avoid-eu-s-digital-dominance-crackdown https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-06/apple-ime...
    - nicce 3y ago
      You can see full list of current decisions here without paywall: https://digital-markets-act-cases.ec.europa.eu/gatekeepers https://digital-markets-act-cases.ec.europa.eu/gatekeepers
- unyttigfjelltol 3y ago
  It's madness for monopolistic communications providers to refuse interoperability.
  - madeofpalk 3y ago
    iMessage is far from monopolistic. Messages on iPhone is interoperable with any other mobile device - it supports SMS!
    - V-eHGsd_ 3y ago
      > it supports SMS! and isn't RCS support coming too?
tedunangst 3y ago
And here you are, posting on a site with a monopoly on HN comments.

justapassenger 3y ago

[dead]

bscphil 3y ago

You can run that argument the other way. It's desirable for there to be only one system of phone lines installed everywhere, where anyone with a telephone number can call anyone else. It would be desirable for there to be only one e2e encrypted "double-ratchet" messaging protocol, for the same reasons. In the case of Bell, the universal lines already existed, the problem was that Bell owned them all and wouldn't let anyone else use them. That was a "monopoly" so there was an argument for breaking it up so that everyone could use the lines. In the case of iMessage (and others), the creators are deliberately building out many different incompatible "lines", and not letting anyone else use those lines. And now people are coming along and saying because it's not a "monopoly", we can't do anything about that. But the real goal was the same in both cases - making universal communication possible. That's what we're all frustrated about here, and the fact that there are dozens of apps trying to wall off competitors is part of the cause of that. Apple is a target because iMessage is the largest such "private line" in the United States.

viraptor 3y ago
> It's desirable for there to be only one system What gets a bit lost in the conversation for iMessage is that the protocol/infra and implementation get merged into one. This is approached in many countries for telcos by splitting the companies providing the lines from the companies providing service on top of them. It's not perfect, but it's better than previous approaches.

CivBase 3y ago

Right. This is much more similar to MS and Internet Explorer back in 98. Interestingly enough, one of the outcomes of that case was IE for the Mac.

jonhohle 3y ago
It required no ongoing infrastructure for people to use IE either on Windows or on Mac. iMessage requires servers, bandwidth, and operators.
- CivBase 3y ago
  Yeah, they're definitely not identical. But from an antitrust perspective I think the MS case is at least much more similar.

ldarby 3y ago

>. Nothing stops you from using another phone, Do you realise phones cost money and not everyone can afford an iPhone?