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 iMes

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.