3 ms·

> it does benefit entrants. Which is why you don’t see successful messaging companies rushing to open their systems. What company wants to spend the effort to

> it does benefit entrants. Which is why you don’t see successful messaging companies rushing to open their systems. What company wants to spend the effort to build a successful messaging platform, only to open it and see some nobody come in with feature parity _and_ the ability to reach/convert every single one of their customers? Open protocols would have worked great if that’s what was mandated _before_ these established products were in the market. Now, it’s going to be an uphill fight all the way, and companies are going to do the absolute bare minimum—-not just what they can get away with technically, but what they can get away with legally (e.g., Apple adopting RCS so they can point to RCS as the common messaging denominator, thus avoiding opening up iMessage itself).

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
I don't see why we should assume that apple must open iMessage users to others out of pure, market-based economic incentive, or even out of the goodness of their heart. We can just make them do it regardless of what they want. It'd be better for people (maybe not apple), and the people can decide how their country is run, including requirements on tech interoperability for businesses operating in that country.
- junofan 3y ago
  Typically we’d need a compelling state interest before we violate people’s rights, no? I mean there’s plenty of authoritarian countries out there to move to if you’d like—we don’t need to become one of them.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    You're using the term "people" loosely here (to refer to a single corporation), and there's no "right to run a dominant and deceptive messaging network while allowing no interoperability", but in any case, we'd only need whatever We The People (the actual people, not 1 singular corporate "person" out of hundreds of millions of actual people) decide we need, regardless of what Apple Incorporated, the single "legal person", wants. I don't see how that's authoritarian, though that's an easy baseless attack to lob by those who disagree with We The People. There are plenty of countries out there that preference corporations over people (I think that's the technical definition of a fascist government). One is free to move there, if they find democratic rule so distasteful. Personally, I prefer majority rule rule to minority rule, given a choice between the two, and likewise prefer rule by the people to rule by a minority of corporate "persons".

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

I don't see why we should assume that apple must open iMessage users to others out of pure, market-based economic incentive, or even out of the goodness of their heart. We can just make them do it regardless of what they want. It'd be better for people (maybe not apple), and the people can decide how their country is run, including requirements on tech interoperability for businesses operating in that country.

junofan 3y ago
Typically we’d need a compelling state interest before we violate people’s rights, no? I mean there’s plenty of authoritarian countries out there to move to if you’d like—we don’t need to become one of them.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  You're using the term "people" loosely here (to refer to a single corporation), and there's no "right to run a dominant and deceptive messaging network while allowing no interoperability", but in any case, we'd only need whatever We The People (the actual people, not 1 singular corporate "person" out of hundreds of millions of actual people) decide we need, regardless of what Apple Incorporated, the single "legal person", wants. I don't see how that's authoritarian, though that's an easy baseless attack to lob by those who disagree with We The People. There are plenty of countries out there that preference corporations over people (I think that's the technical definition of a fascist government). One is free to move there, if they find democratic rule so distasteful. Personally, I prefer majority rule rule to minority rule, given a choice between the two, and likewise prefer rule by the people to rule by a minority of corporate "persons".