There are several posts here pointing out that Apple's rating of it's own products credentials is a bit questionable. I don't really see how this is much different to all those "feature comparisons" where the 'features' are carefully chosen to make the competing products look as bad as possible.
When conversations about some X feature of iOS happen, there's always a few people who can't seem to grasp this, and wonder why Apple doesn't port this or that to Android. This confuses me. Apple's in the business of selling Apple hardware. To sell software that runs widely elsewhere is to change their business model entirely, and given how successful they've been, that doesn't seem like a great move.
My point is that in the context of the current debate about WhatApp's new T&Cs and the question "what can I use instead of WhatsApp that won't infringe my privacy so much", comparing the two doesn't make sense because for the majority of people iMessage isn't even in the list of possible alternatives.
However, iMessage is absolutely in the list of possible alternatives for Apple customers, and they matter even if you're not one.
I know more than one person who switched to iPhone, at least in-part, because of social pressure about the green bubbles.
That's probably a lot easier than a lot of other choices for a lot of people can make.
> I have no expectation that Apple will make iMessage available on non-Apple devices.
I think you should be more suspicious of where you got the idea that Apple should be the one to make iMessage available on non-Apple devices, because clearly the only one who benefits from Apple not being on Android devices is Google.
I mean, if I can get a license to send/receive iMessages on non-Apple kit, then surely Google can, ffs.
I'm an Apple customer, and iMessage isn't in the list of alternatives I can propose to my contacts. Because most of them aren't Apple customers. So I can't use it.
And when you need or want communicate with them, being able to in first place is more important than insisting on specific device vendor.
You're either in or you're out. And if your friends are all in and you aren't, you'll never get to hear from them again. How's that for social pressure to buy an iPhone?
I'm not saying what Apple's done isn't a good thing. But I am saying that maybe they didn't do it for good reasons.
To the users there's no workflow difference
Mainly because the entire chat ends up being downgraded from iMessage to plain SMS, even if only a single non-Apple device joins
Yep. Want to share a video in your group chat that includes a non-Apple user? Everybody gets an MMS that has a postage stamped-size, low framerate video.
Trust me, they're not eager to include me in the next conversation.
Stop ignoring the first one.
Nobody owns email, Jabber or Matrix and that's how it should be.
I don't think other apps can even disable reviews.
Think that the App Store for OS bundled apps is just there for cosmetic reasons. You cannot actually update those apps on their own without an OS update either.
I can remove the Mail app if I want, but I can't leave a review to say why it sucks. That's not fair to every other email app out there. It's typical Apple behavior.
Same for Apple Music and Maps which have real competitors that Apple would hate to lose to. The only Apple apps you can review are toys like Garageband.
You can hide the Mail app. The interface to redisplay it is the App Store.
Removing the mail app would require installing a different OS build.