Ask HN: Why is not allowing iMessage on Android not an antitrust violation?

3 points·arikr··8 comments

Certainly seems like anticompetitive behavior.

Not having iMessage is by far the main reason I haven't switched to Android

Yes, this is the Apple "Walled Garden" philosophy, which can be looked at as (a) Apple make no money off it, so why allow it? But Apple can sell apps on Android if they wish. (b) Android security is so bad for the safety of all IOS users we must guard it well.

Added together, Apple can act in an antitrust manner if it wants to, everyone likes to shoot fish in a barrel, and it would take 5 years of litigation to change it - unless some Government body can decide to do it

> act in an antitrust manner

Only possible if you have a monopoly.

Apple wrote the application, and runs the servers on the back end to support it.

Why shouldn’t they be allowed to choose where they should port that software?

Should they be forced to port it to Windows? Should they be forced to port it to Linux? Maybe they should be forced to port it to plain old analog telephone systems?

Why is not releasing Mario Party on Playstation not an antitrust violation?

Certainly seems like anticompetitive behavior.

Anticompetitive behavior is only illegal when practiced by a company with a monopoly.

For the same reason it wasn't an antitrust concern with Blackberry Messenger (cross platform now, but not until 2013; before that it was one of the compelling features that kept many on the Blackberry platform)

IANAL: As I understand it, Anticompetitive behavior is tied to proactive actions that a company took; including actions to block others.

Apple is simply choosing to focus their efforts on their platform.

Apple has a small market share, something like 15%, and the rest is Android.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com