5 ms·

That’s not Apple’s doing. They introduced iMessage as a direct result of telecom companies charging customers for text messages a la carte. If DoJ has issues wi

by lvl102 3y ago

That’s not Apple’s doing. They introduced iMessage as a direct result of telecom companies charging customers for text messages a la carte. If DoJ has issues with those blue bubbles then they should’ve sued telecom back then. This entire suit is a joke.

Workaccount2 3y ago
The problem isn't the messaging service, the problem is the artificial hardware requirement in order to use it. Second would be the inability to make another app the primary/default once you have said hardware.
- lvl102 3y ago
  That’s not what antitrust is about. Functionally speaking, you would not be able to prove there’s economic harm. Apple’s share of smartphone does not even compare to MSFT’s share of PC back in 90/00s.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    Anti-trust law has gone through a variety of interpretations over the long history of its existence, and I think your characterization of it is incorrect, even under today's recent interpretations. This suit seems to follow the interpretation of: "it is bad if consumers are being harmed in some way". Having a monopoly position via market share is not a necessary condition for that to happen.
    - lvl102 3y ago
      How were consumers harmed from iMessage? Apple doesn’t stop people from downloading Whatsapp and hundreds of other communication apps. The only semi-valid argument they have is the app store. And even that is 10-20% chance considering Apple’s market share. Even though this is DoJ, this is all a part of Lina Khan’s naive crusade against NATURAL monopolies. Just because she doesn’t understand economics and how the real world operates in 2024.
      - tristan957 3y ago
        I am a consumer that was harmed just this week because I wasn't added to a group chat of only iPhone users because I have an Android device.
        edvinbesic 3y ago
        Doesn't really seem like a platform issue per se since your friends could have easily included you just fine, but chose not to.
        tristan957 3y ago
        No they couldn't. As soon as they add me, they can no longer remove or add people to a group chat.
        hmage 3y ago
        It sounds like "I am a car enthusiast who was harmed this week because I wasn't invited to join a Ferrari owners' club since I drive a Lamborghini." People excluding people is the problem. Not the product.
        tristan957 3y ago
        As soon as my friends add me, they can no longer remove or add people to a group chat? How is that not consumer harm?
        tatrajim 3y ago
        Sounds like you need new colleagues. Why would you wish to be part of such a snobbish group? I fail to see why anti-trust law should be brought to bear on issues concerning teen fads. How about wearing the right kind of sneakers? Branded purses, handbags? Parkas? Should uniformity reign universal across all consumer products lest someone, somewhere be excluded to a faddish distinction?
        tristan957 3y ago

by lvl102 3y ago

Workaccount2 3y ago

The problem isn't the messaging service, the problem is the artificial hardware requirement in order to use it. Second would be the inability to make another app the primary/default once you have said hardware.

lvl102 3y ago
That’s not what antitrust is about. Functionally speaking, you would not be able to prove there’s economic harm. Apple’s share of smartphone does not even compare to MSFT’s share of PC back in 90/00s.
- kelnos 3y ago
  Anti-trust law has gone through a variety of interpretations over the long history of its existence, and I think your characterization of it is incorrect, even under today's recent interpretations. This suit seems to follow the interpretation of: "it is bad if consumers are being harmed in some way". Having a monopoly position via market share is not a necessary condition for that to happen.
  - lvl102 3y ago
    How were consumers harmed from iMessage? Apple doesn’t stop people from downloading Whatsapp and hundreds of other communication apps. The only semi-valid argument they have is the app store. And even that is 10-20% chance considering Apple’s market share. Even though this is DoJ, this is all a part of Lina Khan’s naive crusade against NATURAL monopolies. Just because she doesn’t understand economics and how the real world operates in 2024.
    - tristan957 3y ago
      I am a consumer that was harmed just this week because I wasn't added to a group chat of only iPhone users because I have an Android device.
      - edvinbesic 3y ago
        Doesn't really seem like a platform issue per se since your friends could have easily included you just fine, but chose not to.
        tristan957 3y ago
        No they couldn't. As soon as they add me, they can no longer remove or add people to a group chat.
      - hmage 3y ago
        It sounds like "I am a car enthusiast who was harmed this week because I wasn't invited to join a Ferrari owners' club since I drive a Lamborghini." People excluding people is the problem. Not the product.
        tristan957 3y ago
        As soon as my friends add me, they can no longer remove or add people to a group chat? How is that not consumer harm?
      - tatrajim 3y ago
        Sounds like you need new colleagues. Why would you wish to be part of such a snobbish group? I fail to see why anti-trust law should be brought to bear on issues concerning teen fads. How about wearing the right kind of sneakers? Branded purses, handbags? Parkas? Should uniformity reign universal across all consumer products lest someone, somewhere be excluded to a faddish distinction?
        tristan957 3y ago