3 ms·

> But the same Apple is more than happy with providing the Apple Music app on Android as a means to boost their music revenue... Exactly. On the other platform

> But the same Apple is more than happy with providing the Apple Music app on Android as a means to boost their music revenue... Exactly. On the other platforms they provide services because the services provide revenue. The big two things that people say Apple needs to open up are Messages and FaceTime - both of which cost Apple money to maintain and don’t have independent revenue streams. Airplay and CarPlay have similar development costs and I’d imagine that Apple would like to be able to continue to evolve their software without getting blamed for being anti-competitive because they broke some company’s flawed integration. I’d imagine if Apple said “sure, we’ll open up FaceTime, Messages, Airplay, and CarPlay to Android devices as part of our Apple One subscription” you’d have people up in arms because Apple was charging for it. Which lays bare the challenge - for many it’s about wanting these services for free on a platform where Apple receives no revenue.

WWLink 2y ago
Dare I say it, if you convince 60% of the US to communicate on your platform exclusively, you deserve to be hit hard with an antitrust violation. IMHO iMessage should be broken off from Apple and they shouldn't be allowed to run a messaging platform like this.
- matheusmoreira 2y ago
  Antitrust is good but it's treating the symptom, not the disease. The disease is the fact it's illegal to crack open their locks. We need their permission to interoperate. If we don't have it, we're criminals if we try. All we need to do is legalize reverse engineering and circumvention for the purposes of interoperability. In less than a year the iMessage nonsense will be solved because all competing platforms will add support for its protocols whether they want it or not. They'll try to make it hard to do it but it won't matter. Adversarial interoperability should be the norm. They shouldn't have a choice in whether they are interoperated with. It should just happen organically. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/adversarial-interoperability https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/adversarial-interopera...
- tonyedgecombe 2y ago
  >Dare I say it, if you convince 60% of the US to communicate on your platform exclusively, you deserve to be hit hard with an antitrust violation. It sometimes feels like Apple is getting a lot of ire simply for being successful.
rlupi 2y ago
Seriously? > I’d imagine if Apple said “sure, we’ll open up [...email...] to Android devices as part of our Apple One subscription” you’d have people up in arms because Apple was charging for it and now they can send and receive email from people that don't use Apple Mail! A serious loss :-) (and don't tell me that spam makes it worth it)

WWLink 2y ago

Dare I say it, if you convince 60% of the US to communicate on your platform exclusively, you deserve to be hit hard with an antitrust violation. IMHO iMessage should be broken off from Apple and they shouldn't be allowed to run a messaging platform like this.

matheusmoreira 2y ago
Antitrust is good but it's treating the symptom, not the disease. The disease is the fact it's illegal to crack open their locks. We need their permission to interoperate. If we don't have it, we're criminals if we try. All we need to do is legalize reverse engineering and circumvention for the purposes of interoperability. In less than a year the iMessage nonsense will be solved because all competing platforms will add support for its protocols whether they want it or not. They'll try to make it hard to do it but it won't matter. Adversarial interoperability should be the norm. They shouldn't have a choice in whether they are interoperated with. It should just happen organically. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/adversarial-interoperability https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/adversarial-interopera...
tonyedgecombe 2y ago
>Dare I say it, if you convince 60% of the US to communicate on your platform exclusively, you deserve to be hit hard with an antitrust violation. It sometimes feels like Apple is getting a lot of ire simply for being successful.

rlupi 2y ago

Seriously? > I’d imagine if Apple said “sure, we’ll open up [...email...] to Android devices as part of our Apple One subscription” you’d have people up in arms because Apple was charging for it and now they can send and receive email from people that don't use Apple Mail! A serious loss :-) (and don't tell me that spam makes it worth it)