3 ms·
Which part of your argument wouldn't apply to the government forcing Ma Bell to let people use third-party telephones? Or are you saying they shouldn't have don
by josephcsible 3y ago
Which part of your argument wouldn't apply to the government forcing Ma Bell to let people use third-party telephones? Or are you saying they shouldn't have done that either?
- pipework 3y agoThis will pave the way for iMessage to become a separately paid service, at least for users who aren’t hardware customers for apple. Currently, iMessage is ‘free’ to hardware holders. Was Bells services free if you bought their phone?
- darklion 3y agoMa Bell prevented anyone from using their entire communications network unless you bought phones from them. Apple lets anyone who buys their devices use any messaging service they want, with no OS-level restrictions on the capability of those messaging services (that is, a third-party app can effectively take the place of iMessage with no loss of device or app functionality). Apple happens to provide a first-party messaging service which any user is able to completely ignore in favor of one of its many competitors, and many, many do (see literally every place other than the United States). I don’t see how Ma Bell and iMessage are in any way analogous whatsoever.
- commoner 3y ago> no OS-level restrictions on the capability of those messaging services (that is, a third-party app can effectively take the place of iMessage with no loss of device or app functionality) iMessage is not an app, but Apple Messages is. On iOS and the App Store, Apple forbids third-party apps from supporting SMS/MMS from the device, which unfairly disadvantages competitors to Apple Messages (and competitors to iMessage).