This is why I think they are the bad guy. They aren't passively benefiting from an iPhone network effect, they are actively and aggressively prevent workarounds that users can do to get around their lock-in.
During the 90s, Apple was the victim of similar behavior by Microsoft, and most tech people correctly vilified Microsoft for this behavior. Now Apple is acting as the villain and we should call that out.
It has never been easier to switch platforms, and the gulf between iOS and Android has never been shallower. Android users not having access to one also-ran messaging service is not some sort of fundamental injustice, and Apple is not a villain for building features that they think will appeal to their customers. It's sort of their whole business!
The only reason iMessage isn't available on Android, is because Craig Federighi explicitly wants it iPhone only to lock users in to iPhones.
https://twitter.com/TechEmails/status/1589450766506692609?la...
Why should they have to give it to Android?
I just don’t see that quote as a smoking gun. Why isn’t that Apple‘s choice to make?
On the other hand, its because it fucking sucks. It's the largest company in the world (by market cap) which has a revenue of a third of a trillion dollars every year. They can afford to make it free but they don't for their own gain. All their competitors make their myriad of chat apps (that only Americans don't seem to want to use) free and available on as many platforms as possible. The only real reason Apple doesn't is because they want to hoard more and more of their money and become an even bigger company. That just sucks, it's shitty, it's worse for the world. They have hundreds of billions of cash reserves that they don't even know what to do with. I don't give a shit if it's their right or whatever to do it, I still think it sucks and is worse for everyone who isn't a VP at Apple.
Open standards are nice, decentralization is nice, having options and choice and cross-platform things are nice. Having a gigantic company make a choice to create a silo where they're the only ones allowed to use it is not nice.
What I have trouble with are the people who confuse that with existing law say Apple is doing illegal things, which has been sadly common in these threads.
But from an ethical perspective, it sucks. I own Apple devices and Android devices and I have friends on both. Why should my life be more painful just so Apple can squeeze out a tiny bit more money?
That shouldn’t come as a surprise of course, but the Apple reality distortion field is real so I think it’s worth noting.
IMHO, Beeper is the one with an ethics problem.
Ie i can't use the message platform i pay for on many of my devices unless every single one of them is Apple. I use Beeper to use iMessage from my Linux desktop.
You don’t get to say, “we compete just like any other messaging app, we shouldn’t be forced to integrate with anything” while also enjoying OS-level integration to the point where many (most?) people were onboarded into the iMessage ecosystem without even realizing it.
As the Microsoft anti-trust case established, defaults matter.
edit: even a separate preloaded app could still be considered anti-competitive if it’s selected by default, cf. Internet Explorer
The MS case wasn’t all about defaults. I’m not sure any of it was about defaults. The thing that killed them was deals saying you couldn’t offer competing programs or had to pay them regardless of if you put Windows on the machine (so it was a waste of money to ship anything else). Plus changing code to break competitors.
They tried the unified SMS/proprietary message protocol approach with Hangouts but that was short lived. I'm not even sure if it was ever at any point installed by default on a majority of Android phones.
After Hangouts, they tried Allo which did not support SMS and was not a replacement for the default messages app which did support SMS.
The issue with IE, besides the “don’t install Netscape” contracts, was that they undercut Netscape’s price by charging $0 which is impossible to compete with. Essentially dumping. I don’t think it being default was also an issue in the US case, but the 90s was a long time ago.
You’re 100% right about the power of defaults. That was a big issue in the EU which is why MS had to include the first-run browser picker. But I’m not in the EU and didn’t follow that case so unfortunately that tiny bit is all I know there.
How do you think Apple pays is for that? It’s subsidized through device cost.
I get why people hate the App Store rules and no side loading, etc. but that’s a different situation in my mind.
Why should Apple have to give Android users free service?
Who said anything about free? Apple could charge Android users.
But I have a sneaking suspicion the instant Apple releases a paid Android app HN would be having this exact same discussion, except complaining it’s not free.