4 ms·

> When iMessage was released, it was done so as covenience feature for Apple users on iOS (so iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch) to communicate with other Apple users

by dqv 3y ago

> When iMessage was released, it was done so as covenience feature for Apple users on iOS (so iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch) to communicate with other Apple users. iMessage on OS X came later. Irrelevant. Apple and iMessage today are not what Apple and iMessage were when iMessage was released. When a company gets large enough, they are held to a different standard. And for good reason. Waiting for Apple to become a monopoly before enforcing competition and consumer protection laws is, for lack of a better word, stupid. Apple is at risk of becoming a monopoly in this space and it needs to be dealt with before it's too late. > I'd suggest that the very fact that they had the discussion shows that the intention was never to be a multiplatform messaging client. They don't compete in that market. I also see anything inherently wrong with having sticky features which go to differentiating a product to make churning, or steering sales decisions a harder choice. Market competition isn’t the only issue here. Consumer protection is as well. Apple is doing something called “tying”. iPhones and Macs are the tied product and iMessage is the tying product (iMessage being free is irrelevant, it is nonetheless a product and it is a product that can operate independently from the tied product as has been established by Beeper). Tying needn’t affect all consumers, it just needs to be shown that there is a demand for the tying product sans the tied product. It also doesn’t need to be shown that Apple has the majority of the market. There are examples of illegal tying where the company doing it has a lower, but not insignificant, market share. Beeper shows that there is a demand for iMessage independent of an iPhone. iMessage is now (what it was is irrelevant) a tying product. There is demand for communicating between users utilizing the iMessage platform without having to use an iPhone or another of Apple's tied products (that some Apple users want iMessage exclusivity is irrelevant). > Ultimately, there are choices and kids can have Android handsets and communicate securely and for free with multiple differnt apps. It’s also disingenuous to try to differentiate the market while simultaneously suggesting alternatives that supposedly replace the tying product. Either iMessage is in its own market or it's not. But even that doesn't matter, because it is actually up to the consumer to decide what the market is. The truth is that iMessage is in the same market as other messaging apps, but is being unfairly used as a tying product. Of course Apple doesn't want iMessage to be cross-platform, but consumers don't want to be forced to choose what they see as an inferior tied product (regardless of Apple fans' beliefs about Apple's superiority, Apple fans don't represent all consumers, only some of them). To keep the market fair for consumers, Apple has to be held to a higher standard, which means unbundling iMessage and making it available on non-Apple devices or opening the protocol to third parties.

sbuk 3y ago
It's clear that iMessage is a feature specifically tailored for Apple-to-Apple device communication, and it remains that Apple continue to see it as such. The size of Apple as a company, in this context, seems less pertinent. Although not mentioned, I believe that you're alluding to the Microsoft and Internet Explorer case in 2001, which does raise an intriguing point. Although there are parallels, the situations are not exactly the same. Microsoft's strategy involved using its Windows licenses to influence the web browser market, notably by limiting Netscape Navigator's presence. In contrast, Apple does not appear to be exerting similar market force in the instant messaging sector. They haven't restricted alternative messaging platforms. For instance, in the US, there are approximately 135 million iPhone users and about 187 million Facebook Messenger users. This, along with the 40 million WhatsApp users, suggests that Meta might be more dominant in instant messaging to the point of having a Monopoly. While the Microsoft Corp. v. United States case in 2001 significantly altered the legal landscape, the legality of tying arrangements in the US is still based on several factors, such as market power, coercion, competition in the tied product market, and overall impact on interstate commerce. The evaluation of these factors has evolved from a strict illegal standard to a more nuanced "rule of reason" analysis. Considering these factors, it's challenging to view Apple's approach to iMessage as harmful to non-Apple customers. The absence of coercion, the presence of healthy competition, and adherence to existing standards are notable. Declaring iMessage as a tying product is, at this stage, more of an opinion than a confirmed fact. Your argument hinges on the assumption that iMessage is a dominant tying service. However, statistical evidence suggests a competitive instant messaging market exists on iOS and more broadly. To establish iMessage as a dominant force, it would need to be demonstrated that there is a lack of competition in instant messaging, which current evidence does not support.
- advael 3y ago
  I don't think you need a tying argument at all. This is a deceptive business practice and harms apple's customers moreso than non-apple customers. Apple users who expect their text messages to be secure because of how imessage has been advertised to them send insecure messages in the same application based on a difference between people they might not even know about upon receiving their phone number (or that may change if that person switches phones), and the only argument I've seen people make is that Apple wants this to be some "exclusive" service, and this Beeper case has made it clear that they're willing to try to enforce this in the face of someone else interoperating with their protocol Our default position on businesses, especially large ones, should not be that any agreement or restriction they want to hold their customers to is legal, but even setting that aside, this is deceptive advertising that harms their own customers

by dqv 3y ago

sbuk 3y ago

It's clear that iMessage is a feature specifically tailored for Apple-to-Apple device communication, and it remains that Apple continue to see it as such. The size of Apple as a company, in this context, seems less pertinent. Although not mentioned, I believe that you're alluding to the Microsoft and Internet Explorer case in 2001, which does raise an intriguing point. Although there are parallels, the situations are not exactly the same. Microsoft's strategy involved using its Windows licenses to influence the web browser market, notably by limiting Netscape Navigator's presence. In contrast, Apple does not appear to be exerting similar market force in the instant messaging sector. They haven't restricted alternative messaging platforms. For instance, in the US, there are approximately 135 million iPhone users and about 187 million Facebook Messenger users. This, along with the 40 million WhatsApp users, suggests that Meta might be more dominant in instant messaging to the point of having a Monopoly. While the Microsoft Corp. v. United States case in 2001 significantly altered the legal landscape, the legality of tying arrangements in the US is still based on several factors, such as market power, coercion, competition in the tied product market, and overall impact on interstate commerce. The evaluation of these factors has evolved from a strict illegal standard to a more nuanced "rule of reason" analysis. Considering these factors, it's challenging to view Apple's approach to iMessage as harmful to non-Apple customers. The absence of coercion, the presence of healthy competition, and adherence to existing standards are notable. Declaring iMessage as a tying product is, at this stage, more of an opinion than a confirmed fact. Your argument hinges on the assumption that iMessage is a dominant tying service. However, statistical evidence suggests a competitive instant messaging market exists on iOS and more broadly. To establish iMessage as a dominant force, it would need to be demonstrated that there is a lack of competition in instant messaging, which current evidence does not support.

advael 3y ago
I don't think you need a tying argument at all. This is a deceptive business practice and harms apple's customers moreso than non-apple customers. Apple users who expect their text messages to be secure because of how imessage has been advertised to them send insecure messages in the same application based on a difference between people they might not even know about upon receiving their phone number (or that may change if that person switches phones), and the only argument I've seen people make is that Apple wants this to be some "exclusive" service, and this Beeper case has made it clear that they're willing to try to enforce this in the face of someone else interoperating with their protocol Our default position on businesses, especially large ones, should not be that any agreement or restriction they want to hold their customers to is legal, but even setting that aside, this is deceptive advertising that harms their own customers