3 ms·

I dunno, I'm not sure any of these rebuttals move me. I'm going to indulge in a reply against my better judgment. How much iMessage is used relative to other s

I dunno, I'm not sure any of these rebuttals move me. I'm going to indulge in a reply against my better judgment. How much iMessage is used relative to other services depends on who you ask, I guess, but nobody seems to think it's in the top 3, and most don't even think it's in the top five. SMS is by all accounts #1, with things like Whatsapp and Facebook Messenger coming in after that, with WeChat climbing the charts globally. Google doesn't own SMS, but I still contend Google is responsible for this "green vs. blue" construct, and it has has been a success in terms of mindshare. It goes like this… Google considers Apple an important threat, and everyone has seen that Apple considers iMessage an important strength. To mitigate the threat of iMessage, Google and its allies position iMessage as a bigger threat than it is, paint it as more evil than it is, deploy the walled-garden proprietary rhetoric playbook, etc. Comment threads erupt with debates over all of this. Congress pays half-assed half-informed attention and says some hand-wavey stuff about competition and whatnot. Well-meaning and well-informed commenters pick up on competition as well, and start debating the anti-competitiveness of Apple, arguably begging the question, but earnestly considering Apple's marketplace practices all the same. Any one or more of several things can happen out of this that benefit Google. iMessage and blue bubbles could go from being a mark of exclusivity to being more of a scarlet letter, blunting iMessage's competitive impact. Apple could be compelled to make concessions, commercially or technically, that "open up" (mandate support for third-party access) the iMessage product, kneecapping its exclusivity and thus blunting iMessages's competitive impact. Or maybe the kerfluffle helps drive people more toward the third-party messaging services that aren't having their closed, proprietary status challenged, like WhatsApp, WeChat, or, laughably, some Google chat product. Or maybe everyone just quits acting so much like iMessage is such a big deal, stealing some of Apple's thunder. In any case, it's thoroughly ironic that this is all in light of iMessage working with SMS at all. If iMessage were truly closed and proprietary, iPhone users would still be using separate apps for SMS and for iMessage. Did Apple make a mistake allowing the Messages app to work with both iMessage and SMS? If it ends with the government forcing Apple to make changes to the iMessage product, and if that ends up putting iMessage at a disadvantage relative to the chat products not subject to such government regulation, then maybe. If a future in which the government decides which chat apps win and lose is the one we want, then okay. In the meantime, what we have is a situation in which Apple's chat app is competing on its own merits against other chat apps, to some extent because Apple's chat app already interoperates with SMS in a way that other chat apps do not, while those other chat apps are likewise competing on their own merits, and, as a result (and back to the original point), are enjoying a great deal more success by any metric than iMessage is. There aren't any numbers that position iMessage at the top of the heap, unless you narrowly count only iPhone users who use only iMessage and SMS, which is of course a circular argument. The top of the actual heap is already controlled by those aligned with Google against Apple. Perceptions to the contrary are manufactured by those at the top of the heap, in service to themselves. If it's about users, this is a defensive campaign waged by the current market leadership to mitigate the impact of their biggest rival's most visible competitive weapon. And by the way, nobody's actually even suffering. Everyone's making out hand over fist, all the way around. Except Beeper I guess. Now if you want my raw opinion, which maybe you do if you've read this far? Google has embarrassed themselves repeatedly in messaging. This is them trying to make up for that and draw attention away from their own string of self-inflicted failures. Otherwise, we might all still be using a Google-native chat product like we all were ten years ago.

refulgentis 3y ago
This was well-thought out and fun to read, ty for sharing, seriously. Just being brief because I'm exhausted, long day. I worked at Google for the last 7 years and would say generally you'd be very surprised how little actual care is about this. (does not obviate a single word you said, just, eager to point out one of the few things I learned there / from BigCo, how shockingly little care there is in general. (this is not a good thing. I am still s h o c k e d how little people inside the companies pay attention or think about this stuff, it was bizarrely sort of awkward and seen almost as a sign of maladjustment if you were into metadiscussion about industry and products)) Something that does somewhat obviate a bit of what you said is the green/blue thing is a Google construct. There is an ad campaign about it, yes, and its honestly bizarre how much someone in particular fixated on it, like, haven't heard from them in years except this. But that terminology existed farrrr before the ad campaign, long long looooong before. You can't even see the start of the ad campaign on trends.
- jmbwell 3y ago
  Thanks for reading, considering, and replying. I appreciate it. Happy new year!
yonesauce 3y ago
I agree that Apple is totally within their legal right to not only take the actions they are against Beeper, as well as operate iMessage in the way they have been. However, I want to make the argument why regulation of iMessage is justified. Basically, in capitalist societies, where the productivity of the populace is the main financial engine of the economy, what is the purpose of laws and regulations? I'd argue it to boost the productivity of the populace, and both promoting the common good and creating fair competition is a very important part of that. What's the point of opening a local business and investing in innovation if someone can just come along and steal it, as long as they have a moral justification? Which is why the Amex argument makes so much sense: hijacking the investment Amex made on 'moral' grounds makes absolutely no sense. But, as argued by refulgentis, messaging is now a vital service. And while Apple may not look like a monopoly now, they might soon. Currently, 87% of US Teens have iPhones, and pretty much all of them plan on their next phone being an iPhone[1]. All these people know is iPhones, and without seeing the transition to iMessage, they have no idea what the underlying technology is. I've seen this first hand, just finishing my undergrad a year ago. When I was an incoming freshman, I had a Google Pixel. In my Comp Sci and EE classes, there was a decent mix of iPhones and Androids, and whenever a group chat was made, nobody had issues using whatever app worked best. But, I had another group of friends who I went to tailgates with. This group ballooned to 60+ people by Junior year, and I was the only Comp Sci/EE student, though there were a lot of other engineers. We organized tailgates through GroupMe, so they knew other apps existed. However, I was also the only person with an Android phone. Groupchats with me were out of the question. Even small, 3-4 person examples, nobody wanted to download Whatsapp or Signal or anything. Most of these people were genuinely nice people, but their entire perception of messaging and the iPhones superiority was rooted in iMessage. The people who were kind enough to listen to me explain how 'SMS is from literally before we were born, and of course Android phones can send high res pictures, just not through iMessage,' still couldn't be bothered to download another app. The perception was that I was high maintenance for having an Android, and I should just get an iPhone. And when my Pixel died, can you guess what phone I got? I am pretty sure most of these people will grow up and start downloading other messaging apps when they encounter Android users in their professional careers. But an entire generation is growing up, taking their technology for granted (some people in Comp Sci didn't know how folders worked at first, they grew up just searching for things in Windows) and just assume Android is incapable of modern texting. When I had the choice of staying connected to my social group, or getting the new Pixel I actually wanted, it didn't feel like much of a choice. And I think it's hard to argue the perception that caused that social pressure isn't by design. Even my parents were kind of annoyed the whole time I had an Android, as I was literally the only reason the entire family used Whatsapp (outside of my dad for professional reasons). So to bring it back to the legal premise, lack of consumer choice hurts consumers. So while Apple is in their legal right to protect iMessage, I believe the laws need to be changed when the current laws aren't upholding that common good and allowing for fair and open competition. I agree that forcing iMessage to open up is totally in Googles favor, and the duopoly itself is something that needs to be addressed as well. But it shouldn't be an excuse to not fix another issue. If you read this whole thing, well thanks haha. I just couldn't get this off my mind, and want to practice more getting my thoughts written down. If you see holes in my reasoning, or if any of my comment is inappropriate, feel free to tear me apart, lol. Happy new year! [1] https://www.pipersandler.com/teens https://www.pipersandler.com/teens

refulgentis 3y ago

This was well-thought out and fun to read, ty for sharing, seriously. Just being brief because I'm exhausted, long day. I worked at Google for the last 7 years and would say generally you'd be very surprised how little actual care is about this. (does not obviate a single word you said, just, eager to point out one of the few things I learned there / from BigCo, how shockingly little care there is in general. (this is not a good thing. I am still s h o c k e d how little people inside the companies pay attention or think about this stuff, it was bizarrely sort of awkward and seen almost as a sign of maladjustment if you were into metadiscussion about industry and products)) Something that does somewhat obviate a bit of what you said is the green/blue thing is a Google construct. There is an ad campaign about it, yes, and its honestly bizarre how much someone in particular fixated on it, like, haven't heard from them in years except this. But that terminology existed farrrr before the ad campaign, long long looooong before. You can't even see the start of the ad campaign on trends.

jmbwell 3y ago
Thanks for reading, considering, and replying. I appreciate it. Happy new year!

yonesauce 3y ago

I agree that Apple is totally within their legal right to not only take the actions they are against Beeper, as well as operate iMessage in the way they have been. However, I want to make the argument why regulation of iMessage is justified. Basically, in capitalist societies, where the productivity of the populace is the main financial engine of the economy, what is the purpose of laws and regulations? I'd argue it to boost the productivity of the populace, and both promoting the common good and creating fair competition is a very important part of that. What's the point of opening a local business and investing in innovation if someone can just come along and steal it, as long as they have a moral justification? Which is why the Amex argument makes so much sense: hijacking the investment Amex made on 'moral' grounds makes absolutely no sense. But, as argued by refulgentis, messaging is now a vital service. And while Apple may not look like a monopoly now, they might soon. Currently, 87% of US Teens have iPhones, and pretty much all of them plan on their next phone being an iPhone[1]. All these people know is iPhones, and without seeing the transition to iMessage, they have no idea what the underlying technology is. I've seen this first hand, just finishing my undergrad a year ago. When I was an incoming freshman, I had a Google Pixel. In my Comp Sci and EE classes, there was a decent mix of iPhones and Androids, and whenever a group chat was made, nobody had issues using whatever app worked best. But, I had another group of friends who I went to tailgates with. This group ballooned to 60+ people by Junior year, and I was the only Comp Sci/EE student, though there were a lot of other engineers. We organized tailgates through GroupMe, so they knew other apps existed. However, I was also the only person with an Android phone. Groupchats with me were out of the question. Even small, 3-4 person examples, nobody wanted to download Whatsapp or Signal or anything. Most of these people were genuinely nice people, but their entire perception of messaging and the iPhones superiority was rooted in iMessage. The people who were kind enough to listen to me explain how 'SMS is from literally before we were born, and of course Android phones can send high res pictures, just not through iMessage,' still couldn't be bothered to download another app. The perception was that I was high maintenance for having an Android, and I should just get an iPhone. And when my Pixel died, can you guess what phone I got? I am pretty sure most of these people will grow up and start downloading other messaging apps when they encounter Android users in their professional careers. But an entire generation is growing up, taking their technology for granted (some people in Comp Sci didn't know how folders worked at first, they grew up just searching for things in Windows) and just assume Android is incapable of modern texting. When I had the choice of staying connected to my social group, or getting the new Pixel I actually wanted, it didn't feel like much of a choice. And I think it's hard to argue the perception that caused that social pressure isn't by design. Even my parents were kind of annoyed the whole time I had an Android, as I was literally the only reason the entire family used Whatsapp (outside of my dad for professional reasons). So to bring it back to the legal premise, lack of consumer choice hurts consumers. So while Apple is in their legal right to protect iMessage, I believe the laws need to be changed when the current laws aren't upholding that common good and allowing for fair and open competition. I agree that forcing iMessage to open up is totally in Googles favor, and the duopoly itself is something that needs to be addressed as well. But it shouldn't be an excuse to not fix another issue. If you read this whole thing, well thanks haha. I just couldn't get this off my mind, and want to practice more getting my thoughts written down. If you see holes in my reasoning, or if any of my comment is inappropriate, feel free to tear me apart, lol. Happy new year! [1] https://www.pipersandler.com/teens https://www.pipersandler.com/teens