3 ms·

> iMessage is a lock in that they use to their benefit This is why I think they are the bad guy. They aren't passively benefiting from an iPhone network effec

> iMessage is a lock in that they use to their benefit This is why I think they are the bad guy. They aren't passively benefiting from an iPhone network effect, they are actively and aggressively prevent workarounds that users can do to get around their lock-in. During the 90s, Apple was the victim of similar behavior by Microsoft, and most tech people correctly vilified Microsoft for this behavior. Now Apple is acting as the villain and we should call that out.

hraedon 3y ago
Apple restricting a free service to Apple's own users is not even remotely the same as Microsoft's various forms of skullduggery and I don't know how you can make the comparison seriously. It has never been easier to switch platforms, and the gulf between iOS and Android has never been shallower. Android users not having access to one also-ran messaging service is not some sort of fundamental injustice, and Apple is not a villain for building features that they think will appeal to their customers. It's sort of their whole business!
MBCook 3y ago
What do you mean by get around their lock in? You mean that only Apple users can use iMessage? How do you think Apple pays is for that? It’s subsidized through device cost. I get why people hate the App Store rules and no side loading, etc. but that’s a different situation in my mind. Why should Apple have to give Android users free service?
- bhelkey 3y ago
  > Why should Apple have to give Android users free service? Who said anything about free? Apple could charge Android users.
  - MBCook 3y ago
    That’s fair. No one has said free. But I have a sneaking suspicion the instant Apple releases a paid Android app HN would be having this exact same discussion, except complaining it’s not free.
    - bhelkey 3y ago
      I cannot say how HN would respond but Beeper's whole business model is charging users for iMessage.
etblg 3y ago
In case anyone thinks its an overstatement, no, it's not. The only reason iMessage isn't available on Android, is because Craig Federighi explicitly wants it iPhone only to lock users in to iPhones. https://twitter.com/TechEmails/status/1589450766506692609?lang=en https://twitter.com/TechEmails/status/1589450766506692609?la...
- MBCook 3y ago
  Right. But it’s a service Apple created to add value to Apple devices. It’s subsidized by people purchasing those devices. Why should they have to give it to Android? I just don’t see that quote as a smoking gun. Why isn’t that Apple‘s choice to make?
  - etblg 3y ago
    Well from some logical point of view I don't know if I have a good case to argue off the top of my head, nor do I want to come up with one. On the other hand, its because it fucking sucks. It's the largest company in the world (by market cap) which has a revenue of a third of a trillion dollars every year. They can afford to make it free but they don't for their own gain. All their competitors make their myriad of chat apps (that only Americans don't seem to want to use) free and available on as many platforms as possible. The only real reason Apple doesn't is because they want to hoard more and more of their money and become an even bigger company. That just sucks, it's shitty, it's worse for the world. They have hundreds of billions of cash reserves that they don't even know what to do with. I don't give a shit if it's their right or whatever to do it, I still think it sucks and is worse for everyone who isn't a VP at Apple. Open standards are nice, decentralization is nice, having options and choice and cross-platform things are nice. Having a gigantic company make a choice to create a silo where they're the only ones allowed to use it is not nice.
    - MBCook 3y ago
      I totally get the “this sucks it should be better argument”. And I get people wanting laws to fix it. What I have trouble with are the people who confuse that with existing law say Apple is doing illegal things, which has been sadly common in these threads.

hraedon 3y ago

Apple restricting a free service to Apple's own users is not even remotely the same as Microsoft's various forms of skullduggery and I don't know how you can make the comparison seriously. It has never been easier to switch platforms, and the gulf between iOS and Android has never been shallower. Android users not having access to one also-ran messaging service is not some sort of fundamental injustice, and Apple is not a villain for building features that they think will appeal to their customers. It's sort of their whole business!

MBCook 3y ago

What do you mean by get around their lock in? You mean that only Apple users can use iMessage? How do you think Apple pays is for that? It’s subsidized through device cost. I get why people hate the App Store rules and no side loading, etc. but that’s a different situation in my mind. Why should Apple have to give Android users free service?

bhelkey 3y ago
> Why should Apple have to give Android users free service? Who said anything about free? Apple could charge Android users.
- MBCook 3y ago
  That’s fair. No one has said free. But I have a sneaking suspicion the instant Apple releases a paid Android app HN would be having this exact same discussion, except complaining it’s not free.
  - bhelkey 3y ago
    I cannot say how HN would respond but Beeper's whole business model is charging users for iMessage.

etblg 3y ago

In case anyone thinks its an overstatement, no, it's not. The only reason iMessage isn't available on Android, is because Craig Federighi explicitly wants it iPhone only to lock users in to iPhones. https://twitter.com/TechEmails/status/1589450766506692609?lang=en https://twitter.com/TechEmails/status/1589450766506692609?la...

MBCook 3y ago
Right. But it’s a service Apple created to add value to Apple devices. It’s subsidized by people purchasing those devices. Why should they have to give it to Android? I just don’t see that quote as a smoking gun. Why isn’t that Apple‘s choice to make?
- etblg 3y ago
  Well from some logical point of view I don't know if I have a good case to argue off the top of my head, nor do I want to come up with one. On the other hand, its because it fucking sucks. It's the largest company in the world (by market cap) which has a revenue of a third of a trillion dollars every year. They can afford to make it free but they don't for their own gain. All their competitors make their myriad of chat apps (that only Americans don't seem to want to use) free and available on as many platforms as possible. The only real reason Apple doesn't is because they want to hoard more and more of their money and become an even bigger company. That just sucks, it's shitty, it's worse for the world. They have hundreds of billions of cash reserves that they don't even know what to do with. I don't give a shit if it's their right or whatever to do it, I still think it sucks and is worse for everyone who isn't a VP at Apple. Open standards are nice, decentralization is nice, having options and choice and cross-platform things are nice. Having a gigantic company make a choice to create a silo where they're the only ones allowed to use it is not nice.
  - MBCook 3y ago
    I totally get the “this sucks it should be better argument”. And I get people wanting laws to fix it. What I have trouble with are the people who confuse that with existing law say Apple is doing illegal things, which has been sadly common in these threads.