3 ms·

You don't. You get no-fee access to iMessage with your Apple devices (phones, tablets, laptops, desktops). Why is that relevant though? Why should Apple be forc

by throwaway22056 3y ago

You don't. You get no-fee access to iMessage with your Apple devices (phones, tablets, laptops, desktops). Why is that relevant though? Why should Apple be forced to support apps on their competitor's platform?

kmeisthax 3y ago
Because the EU specifically wrote a law requiring (among other people) Apple to support apps on their competitor's platform, as a response to a bunch of anti-competitive nonsense the tech industry does with messaging apps.
- throwaway22056 3y ago
  No, they didn't. There might be something about interoperability of the service with other services, but they definitely didn't do what you claim.
  - arghwhat 3y ago
    To clarify: The Digital Markets Act includes a requirement for large message services to be interoperable (e.g., that you can chat with a WhatsApp user from Telegram), but Apple argues that iMessage does not have enough users in the EU to qualify. Apple might be correct in this regard, as iMessage is not very popular in EU specifically. For this to apply here, either Apple would have to be caught lying about their numbers (not impossible), the EU would have to lower the minimums, or the US would have to create their own counterpart as iMessage is much more popular in the US.
    - pmontra 3y ago
      Everybody really use WhatsApp to send messages to friends here, especially in group chats. I'm using Telegram with some friends and for some groups but WhatsApp is bigger. Anything else is a rounding error. It's not even easy to know who's got an iPhone now: it's just a big phone with lots of cameras as any other one. However it's likely that two close friends, families, etc all using iPhones could decide to use iMessage for their own messages. Same as for... (had to google it) FaceTime.
bauruine 3y ago
Getting it for free with your Apple device sounds like "monetise it via the sale of hardware devices" which they supposedly don't do.
- throwaway22056 3y ago
  I don't know, it doesn't to me. To me it sounds like they provide a convenient free service like many other free services (Telegram, WhatsApp, ...), but limit it to their actual customers so it stays limited in scope and they don't need to start selling data and ad space like others do to support it.
  - djfdat 3y ago
    free in that case, being subsidized by other purchases and the value of lock-in on those users. Doesn't sound like free. Sounds likes a calculated offering where users are paying, not in terms of their data, but their inability to change platforms and guarantee of future purchases being spent on Apple products.
    - throwaway22056 3y ago
      Is there any case in your world where a company just provides a free convenient service to its customers, or is it always an ulterior motive?
  - arghwhat 3y ago
    When a service reaches a certain size, it is not just a small free service for its users. This is the point of gatekeeper regulations: Ensuring that services large enough to have significant impact on people are well-behaved and compatible. The argument that iMessage is a service provided by Apple for Apple products and that they should be allowed to do whatever with their products is the same argument they've used to restrict App Store, force developers to use their payment systems and charge outrageous cuts of every payment a user might make through there. iMessage plays quite a notable role in this, as a user whose friends use iMessage (more prevalent in parts of the U.S. I think) might feel unable to move away in order to be connected to their iMessage-using friends, in turn ensuring that they keep buying iPhones and paying Apple a 30% cut of all their app subscriptions from Duolingo to Disney+.

kmeisthax 3y ago

Because the EU specifically wrote a law requiring (among other people) Apple to support apps on their competitor's platform, as a response to a bunch of anti-competitive nonsense the tech industry does with messaging apps.

throwaway22056 3y ago
No, they didn't. There might be something about interoperability of the service with other services, but they definitely didn't do what you claim.
- arghwhat 3y ago
  To clarify: The Digital Markets Act includes a requirement for large message services to be interoperable (e.g., that you can chat with a WhatsApp user from Telegram), but Apple argues that iMessage does not have enough users in the EU to qualify. Apple might be correct in this regard, as iMessage is not very popular in EU specifically. For this to apply here, either Apple would have to be caught lying about their numbers (not impossible), the EU would have to lower the minimums, or the US would have to create their own counterpart as iMessage is much more popular in the US.
  - pmontra 3y ago
    Everybody really use WhatsApp to send messages to friends here, especially in group chats. I'm using Telegram with some friends and for some groups but WhatsApp is bigger. Anything else is a rounding error. It's not even easy to know who's got an iPhone now: it's just a big phone with lots of cameras as any other one. However it's likely that two close friends, families, etc all using iPhones could decide to use iMessage for their own messages. Same as for... (had to google it) FaceTime.

bauruine 3y ago

Getting it for free with your Apple device sounds like "monetise it via the sale of hardware devices" which they supposedly don't do.

throwaway22056 3y ago
I don't know, it doesn't to me. To me it sounds like they provide a convenient free service like many other free services (Telegram, WhatsApp, ...), but limit it to their actual customers so it stays limited in scope and they don't need to start selling data and ad space like others do to support it.
- djfdat 3y ago
  free in that case, being subsidized by other purchases and the value of lock-in on those users. Doesn't sound like free. Sounds likes a calculated offering where users are paying, not in terms of their data, but their inability to change platforms and guarantee of future purchases being spent on Apple products.
  - throwaway22056 3y ago
    Is there any case in your world where a company just provides a free convenient service to its customers, or is it always an ulterior motive?
- arghwhat 3y ago
  When a service reaches a certain size, it is not just a small free service for its users. This is the point of gatekeeper regulations: Ensuring that services large enough to have significant impact on people are well-behaved and compatible. The argument that iMessage is a service provided by Apple for Apple products and that they should be allowed to do whatever with their products is the same argument they've used to restrict App Store, force developers to use their payment systems and charge outrageous cuts of every payment a user might make through there. iMessage plays quite a notable role in this, as a user whose friends use iMessage (more prevalent in parts of the U.S. I think) might feel unable to move away in order to be connected to their iMessage-using friends, in turn ensuring that they keep buying iPhones and paying Apple a 30% cut of all their app subscriptions from Duolingo to Disney+.