4 ms·

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 be

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

turquoisevar 3y ago
Happy New Year! I read your comment and recognized much of what you were describing with the caveat that in my case during college it was WhatsApp and not iMessage as I grew up in Europe. I personally preferred to use iMessage or at the very least some more security focused alternatives like Signal or Telegram, but any one of those options would be ridiculed even when dealing with groups that exclusively consisted of iPhone users. Funny enough the concept of iMessage was completely foreign to them and would often draw confused looks, whereas offering up Signal or Telegram was deemed too much of a hassle. Where we differ is mainly in the end conclusion. Namely that, while annoying, I don’t think there’s a role for government to prevent this “bullying” for lack of a better word, and I’m saying that as someone who generally applauds strong regulations. The reason why I don’t think there’s a role for government isn’t out of a disdain for regulation, rather it’s because I feel this is a social issue that has to do with relationships between people and I feel uncomfortable with the idea that a government would regulate with the goal of influencing social relationships to this degree. I eventually adopted a personal policy where I simply decided that if people wanted to reach me they can do so in the manner I prefer, instead of ceding ground like I used to do. This has worked out surprisingly well, perhaps in part because I never really liked the SNR of group chats to begin with, so I didn’t feel like I was missing out on a lot by not being a part of group chats. Other than the group chats I didn’t miss out on IRL group events or hanging out with people, but that’s in part because there was always someone letting me know of plans made in the group chat and vice versa I’d actively ask. Ultimately it proved to be useful to be apt in good old analogous social skills, at least to the degree that people wanted me to be a part of things and thus invited me to them (this might also be a matter of choosing your friends wisely). In other situations, where I wasn’t not always dealing with friends (e.g., group projects, etc.) it also helped that I sometimes was the organizer and in other times that people relied on my contributions. > And I think it's hard to argue the perception that caused that social pressure isn't by design. I’ve seen this sentiment before, but I’m not sure about this. Apple has never expressed anything suggesting this, and their messaging around iMessage has always been consistent. Some argue that this can be surmised from them building it into the Messages app and activating it based on the phone number, but to my SWE brain that just makes sense in terms of aiming for as little friction as possible when it was launched. The fact that people independently exert social pressure or express annoyance isn’t enough to convince me that this was by design. > 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 lack of consumer choice hurts consumers, but I think we differ on what constitutes choice. I see a vibrant messaging service market where there are heaps of competitors. Fork big ones like WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, FB Messenger, whatever the latest one Google is pushing is called, to smaller obscure ones and even ones based on open protocols like Matrix. On a macro scale there aren’t that many choices, there is Android which is relatively open with options to go at it entirely your own way and iOS which is closed and a very curated experience. To me, breaking open iOS takes away a choice in a market with only two choices to begin with. To others, and I suspect you as well, it counts as adding more choices, because the lens through which they look at choices is one that mainly focuses on choices within a specific platform. Personally I wish that we could gain a third option instead of undermining the premise of one of the two current options. Say, Android, iOS and a “GrayOS” that sits in between Android and iOS in terms of openness. While still far cry from a plethora of choices, it could at least cover the 3 main philosophies. But who’s got time and money nowadays to develop an entire smartphone OS from the ground up and work to get manufacturers to adopt it? Perhaps Windows Phone OS could’ve been this third option in an alternate timeline.

turquoisevar 3y ago

Happy New Year! I read your comment and recognized much of what you were describing with the caveat that in my case during college it was WhatsApp and not iMessage as I grew up in Europe. I personally preferred to use iMessage or at the very least some more security focused alternatives like Signal or Telegram, but any one of those options would be ridiculed even when dealing with groups that exclusively consisted of iPhone users. Funny enough the concept of iMessage was completely foreign to them and would often draw confused looks, whereas offering up Signal or Telegram was deemed too much of a hassle. Where we differ is mainly in the end conclusion. Namely that, while annoying, I don’t think there’s a role for government to prevent this “bullying” for lack of a better word, and I’m saying that as someone who generally applauds strong regulations. The reason why I don’t think there’s a role for government isn’t out of a disdain for regulation, rather it’s because I feel this is a social issue that has to do with relationships between people and I feel uncomfortable with the idea that a government would regulate with the goal of influencing social relationships to this degree. I eventually adopted a personal policy where I simply decided that if people wanted to reach me they can do so in the manner I prefer, instead of ceding ground like I used to do. This has worked out surprisingly well, perhaps in part because I never really liked the SNR of group chats to begin with, so I didn’t feel like I was missing out on a lot by not being a part of group chats. Other than the group chats I didn’t miss out on IRL group events or hanging out with people, but that’s in part because there was always someone letting me know of plans made in the group chat and vice versa I’d actively ask. Ultimately it proved to be useful to be apt in good old analogous social skills, at least to the degree that people wanted me to be a part of things and thus invited me to them (this might also be a matter of choosing your friends wisely). In other situations, where I wasn’t not always dealing with friends (e.g., group projects, etc.) it also helped that I sometimes was the organizer and in other times that people relied on my contributions. > And I think it's hard to argue the perception that caused that social pressure isn't by design. I’ve seen this sentiment before, but I’m not sure about this. Apple has never expressed anything suggesting this, and their messaging around iMessage has always been consistent. Some argue that this can be surmised from them building it into the Messages app and activating it based on the phone number, but to my SWE brain that just makes sense in terms of aiming for as little friction as possible when it was launched. The fact that people independently exert social pressure or express annoyance isn’t enough to convince me that this was by design. > 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 lack of consumer choice hurts consumers, but I think we differ on what constitutes choice. I see a vibrant messaging service market where there are heaps of competitors. Fork big ones like WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, FB Messenger, whatever the latest one Google is pushing is called, to smaller obscure ones and even ones based on open protocols like Matrix. On a macro scale there aren’t that many choices, there is Android which is relatively open with options to go at it entirely your own way and iOS which is closed and a very curated experience. To me, breaking open iOS takes away a choice in a market with only two choices to begin with. To others, and I suspect you as well, it counts as adding more choices, because the lens through which they look at choices is one that mainly focuses on choices within a specific platform. Personally I wish that we could gain a third option instead of undermining the premise of one of the two current options. Say, Android, iOS and a “GrayOS” that sits in between Android and iOS in terms of openness. While still far cry from a plethora of choices, it could at least cover the 3 main philosophies. But who’s got time and money nowadays to develop an entire smartphone OS from the ground up and work to get manufacturers to adopt it? Perhaps Windows Phone OS could’ve been this third option in an alternate timeline.