>It's clear that iMessage is a feature specifically tailored for Apple-to-Apple device communication, and it remains that Apple continue to see it as such. The size of Apple as a company, in this context, seems less pertinent.
It's important here because iPhones are the dominant device by market share in the US. Their share is something like 57%.
>I believe that you're alluding to the Microsoft and Internet Explorer case in 2001
I'm talking about the strategy of tying in general. The tying Apple is doing with iMessage is not the same as Microsoft III.
>In contrast, Apple does not appear to be exerting similar market force in the instant messaging sector. They haven't restricted alternative messaging platforms.
Again, iMessage is the tying product, iPhones are the tied product. Apple is using iMessage to maintain its dominance in the smartphone market. They are restricting the smartphone market by coercing consumers with the threat of hindering communication (i.e. making the experience worse for both parties) within their social network by cutting off access to iMessage. In other words, if I switch back to Android, I lose access to the group chats (through exclusion) and can no longer share or receive media in high resolution. I am then forced into trying to convince a large social network (some of whom I am only acquainted with) to use some other messaging platform.
>For instance, in the US, there are approximately 135 million iPhone users and about 187 million Facebook Messenger users. This, along with the 40 million WhatsApp users, suggests that Meta might be more dominant in instant messaging to the point of having a Monopoly.
Just one point, because I've already addressed this, but "you can use Messenger/WhatsApp/etc" is the equivalent of "a gay man can get married here, he just needs to marry a woman!" Getting significantly everyone in an iMessage-dominant social network to switch to a cross-platform messaging application is very difficult, if not impossible, which is why this is an issue at all.
>Your argument hinges on the assumption that iMessage is a dominant tying service.
No, my argument relies on the fact that iPhones are a dominant tied good through which one is coerced into buying to be able to access iMessage the tying good. No assumptions are needed, the market data reflect this. This isn't about iMessage dominance, this is about iPhone dominance.