4 ms·

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 s

by 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
- sbuk 3y ago
  Blue and green bubbles, from day one have indicated this.
  - advael 3y ago
    1. Apple makes it clear that this indicates whether someone has an iPhone. This does not make clear to non-technical users that this indicates that you are sending a different type of less-secure message to these users. 2. Even if Apple made this clear, it still creates a pretty insecure environment in practice. If you don't know ahead of time what phone someone you're talking to has, you must receive a message from someone before you can know whether messages you have sent them are secure, in the same chat application you use to send secure messages
dqv 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. It's important here because iPhones are the dominant device by market share in the US. Their share is something like 57%. >I believe that you're alluding to the Microsoft and Internet Explorer case in 2001 I'm talking about the strategy of tying in general. The tying Apple is doing with iMessage is not the same as Microsoft III. >In contrast, Apple does not appear to be exerting similar market force in the instant messaging sector. They haven't restricted alternative messaging platforms. Again, iMessage is the tying product, iPhones are the tied product. Apple is using iMessage to maintain its dominance in the smartphone market. They are restricting the smartphone market by coercing consumers with the threat of hindering communication (i.e. making the experience worse for both parties) within their social network by cutting off access to iMessage. In other words, if I switch back to Android, I lose access to the group chats (through exclusion) and can no longer share or receive media in high resolution. I am then forced into trying to convince a large social network (some of whom I am only acquainted with) to use some other messaging platform. >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. Just one point, because I've already addressed this, but "you can use Messenger/WhatsApp/etc" is the equivalent of "a gay man can get married here, he just needs to marry a woman!" Getting significantly everyone in an iMessage-dominant social network to switch to a cross-platform messaging application is very difficult, if not impossible, which is why this is an issue at all. >Your argument hinges on the assumption that iMessage is a dominant tying service. No, my argument relies on the fact that iPhones are a dominant tied good through which one is coerced into buying to be able to access iMessage the tying good. No assumptions are needed, the market data reflect this. This isn't about iMessage dominance, this is about iPhone dominance.
- sbuk 3y ago
  And, as I point out, either way, I do not believe that the criterion for antitrust is met, rationally or per se illegal.

by sbuk 3y ago

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

sbuk 3y ago
Blue and green bubbles, from day one have indicated this.
- advael 3y ago
  1. Apple makes it clear that this indicates whether someone has an iPhone. This does not make clear to non-technical users that this indicates that you are sending a different type of less-secure message to these users. 2. Even if Apple made this clear, it still creates a pretty insecure environment in practice. If you don't know ahead of time what phone someone you're talking to has, you must receive a message from someone before you can know whether messages you have sent them are secure, in the same chat application you use to send secure messages

dqv 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. It's important here because iPhones are the dominant device by market share in the US. Their share is something like 57%. >I believe that you're alluding to the Microsoft and Internet Explorer case in 2001 I'm talking about the strategy of tying in general. The tying Apple is doing with iMessage is not the same as Microsoft III. >In contrast, Apple does not appear to be exerting similar market force in the instant messaging sector. They haven't restricted alternative messaging platforms. Again, iMessage is the tying product, iPhones are the tied product. Apple is using iMessage to maintain its dominance in the smartphone market. They are restricting the smartphone market by coercing consumers with the threat of hindering communication (i.e. making the experience worse for both parties) within their social network by cutting off access to iMessage. In other words, if I switch back to Android, I lose access to the group chats (through exclusion) and can no longer share or receive media in high resolution. I am then forced into trying to convince a large social network (some of whom I am only acquainted with) to use some other messaging platform. >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. Just one point, because I've already addressed this, but "you can use Messenger/WhatsApp/etc" is the equivalent of "a gay man can get married here, he just needs to marry a woman!" Getting significantly everyone in an iMessage-dominant social network to switch to a cross-platform messaging application is very difficult, if not impossible, which is why this is an issue at all. >Your argument hinges on the assumption that iMessage is a dominant tying service. No, my argument relies on the fact that iPhones are a dominant tied good through which one is coerced into buying to be able to access iMessage the tying good. No assumptions are needed, the market data reflect this. This isn't about iMessage dominance, this is about iPhone dominance.

sbuk 3y ago
And, as I point out, either way, I do not believe that the criterion for antitrust is met, rationally or per se illegal.