4 ms·

The illusion of competition? This whole event has a lot of people talking about antitrust action against Apple for keeping iMessage exclusive to their own hardw

The illusion of competition? This whole event has a lot of people talking about antitrust action against Apple for keeping iMessage exclusive to their own hardware, leaving Android devices out of the loop. Why would Google want to help Apple maintain iMessage's competitive edge over their platform? Edit: just to be clear, I don’t buy the argument that Apple is doing anything wrong with keeping iMessage exclusive to their brand. I only wanted to relay that argument here to discuss in this context

realusername 3y ago
Because they don't compete with each other? They are in different markets and they don't really care that a portion of users stick to Apple. I'd say the opposite, having Android with a 90% market share would be a bad thing for Google since it opens easier antitrust lawsuits. The statu quo is more profitable. See the "Our vision is that we work as if we are one company" quote from Google execs which is representative of what's happening in the space.
mrcode007 3y ago
Why would Apple let other companies use their servers and infrastructure ? Have you ever heard of an independent car repair shop being allowed access to the manufacturer’s factory floor ? How about factory floors of all car manufacturers? It makes no sense. How about I go use your home’s toilet when I’m nearby?
- maven29 3y ago
  While we're at it, let's outlaw web search as well. Clearly, those indexing bots are not paying customers. If a niche enthusiast crowd worth of traffic will absolutely obliterate the underlying infrastructure, allow unchecked flows of spam and undermine the security posture, maybe Apple should just leave it to the telcos who might be marginally more competent.
  - rahkiin 3y ago
    The irony of indexing being Google does not want to be index by others and prohibits scraping in their ToS
- justinclift 3y ago
  > Have you ever heard of an independent car repair shop being allowed access to the manufacturer’s factory floor ? Car manufacturers used to publish detailed (technical) manuals for all of their cars exactly so mechanics (owners, repair shops, etc) could work on their vehicles. In modern times though, manufacturers seem to be DRM-ing (and similar) as much as they can in order to capture the repair business for themselves. It's not a good look. :(
- ryanjshaw 3y ago
  It's almost as absurd as a telephone company letting a competing telephone company route phone calls over THEIR wires to THEIR customers, isn't it?
  - mrcode007 3y ago
    Yeah. Especially for free without peering charges like the ones ISPs charge so you can get internet Remember the days when you had to pay per text message? https://www.fcc.gov/general/tariffs-0 https://www.fcc.gov/general/tariffs-0
Almondsetat 3y ago
I buy an Apple device and I know that part of the premium includes paying for Apple services. Why would other people who haven't given a cent to Apple be entitled to leech off their servers? I could understand complaining about AirDrop being closed off since it's peer to peer and offline, but iMessage really stretches it
- chongli 3y ago
  I’ve already made the same argument you just made here in a previous thread on the topic. My post here was intended to relay that argument without endorsing it (a difficult thing to do without being explicit).
- asQuirreL 3y ago
  IANAL but does this argument not smell like Bundling? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_(antitrust_law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_(antitrust_law) It's not quite the same because Bundling seems to be about setting a price that is too low, so this isn't a legal precedent but it seems like a morally similar argument? You are saying that you paid Apple for a device, and that entitles you to access to their services (e.g. Apple bundled their services with their device for free). If this was Apple's main contention with Beeper, then why not allow people to pay a one-off fee to access their services (whatever fraction of the retail price of a device goes towards services)? I suspect they can't do this because then you would be fully in Bundling territory: that the one-off price you pay to access Apple's services becomes cheaper when bundled with a device. The whole idea that you paid a one-off fee and that covers your indefinite access to Apple's servers at a continuous cost to them also seems like a flawed model if that's really what the economics of iMessage are. Of course the contention is that the continuous fee to you is the fact that you are locked in and are therefore helping Apple attract other people to their ecosystem. There is also another argument going round that somehow the issue is that Beeper is charging for their service. I don't buy that, because I pay for Beeper and I don't use their iMessage integration (because I live in the UK so this whole blue bubble green, bubble thing is just not a thing here and we can just enjoy watching it unfold with idle curiosity) and I pay the same as someone who would. I am paying them on a continuous basis because they are running servers that I want access to that bridge to other services I use and want aggregated in one place.

realusername 3y ago

Because they don't compete with each other? They are in different markets and they don't really care that a portion of users stick to Apple. I'd say the opposite, having Android with a 90% market share would be a bad thing for Google since it opens easier antitrust lawsuits. The statu quo is more profitable. See the "Our vision is that we work as if we are one company" quote from Google execs which is representative of what's happening in the space.

mrcode007 3y ago

Why would Apple let other companies use their servers and infrastructure ? Have you ever heard of an independent car repair shop being allowed access to the manufacturer’s factory floor ? How about factory floors of all car manufacturers? It makes no sense. How about I go use your home’s toilet when I’m nearby?

maven29 3y ago
While we're at it, let's outlaw web search as well. Clearly, those indexing bots are not paying customers. If a niche enthusiast crowd worth of traffic will absolutely obliterate the underlying infrastructure, allow unchecked flows of spam and undermine the security posture, maybe Apple should just leave it to the telcos who might be marginally more competent.
- rahkiin 3y ago
  The irony of indexing being Google does not want to be index by others and prohibits scraping in their ToS
justinclift 3y ago
> Have you ever heard of an independent car repair shop being allowed access to the manufacturer’s factory floor ? Car manufacturers used to publish detailed (technical) manuals for all of their cars exactly so mechanics (owners, repair shops, etc) could work on their vehicles. In modern times though, manufacturers seem to be DRM-ing (and similar) as much as they can in order to capture the repair business for themselves. It's not a good look. :(
ryanjshaw 3y ago
It's almost as absurd as a telephone company letting a competing telephone company route phone calls over THEIR wires to THEIR customers, isn't it?
- mrcode007 3y ago
  Yeah. Especially for free without peering charges like the ones ISPs charge so you can get internet Remember the days when you had to pay per text message? https://www.fcc.gov/general/tariffs-0 https://www.fcc.gov/general/tariffs-0

Almondsetat 3y ago

I buy an Apple device and I know that part of the premium includes paying for Apple services. Why would other people who haven't given a cent to Apple be entitled to leech off their servers? I could understand complaining about AirDrop being closed off since it's peer to peer and offline, but iMessage really stretches it

chongli 3y ago
I’ve already made the same argument you just made here in a previous thread on the topic. My post here was intended to relay that argument without endorsing it (a difficult thing to do without being explicit).
asQuirreL 3y ago
IANAL but does this argument not smell like Bundling? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_(antitrust_law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_(antitrust_law) It's not quite the same because Bundling seems to be about setting a price that is too low, so this isn't a legal precedent but it seems like a morally similar argument? You are saying that you paid Apple for a device, and that entitles you to access to their services (e.g. Apple bundled their services with their device for free). If this was Apple's main contention with Beeper, then why not allow people to pay a one-off fee to access their services (whatever fraction of the retail price of a device goes towards services)? I suspect they can't do this because then you would be fully in Bundling territory: that the one-off price you pay to access Apple's services becomes cheaper when bundled with a device. The whole idea that you paid a one-off fee and that covers your indefinite access to Apple's servers at a continuous cost to them also seems like a flawed model if that's really what the economics of iMessage are. Of course the contention is that the continuous fee to you is the fact that you are locked in and are therefore helping Apple attract other people to their ecosystem. There is also another argument going round that somehow the issue is that Beeper is charging for their service. I don't buy that, because I pay for Beeper and I don't use their iMessage integration (because I live in the UK so this whole blue bubble green, bubble thing is just not a thing here and we can just enjoy watching it unfold with idle curiosity) and I pay the same as someone who would. I am paying them on a continuous basis because they are running servers that I want access to that bridge to other services I use and want aggregated in one place.