> They control more than 50% of the US smartphone market, and lock customers into using Apple’s official app for texting (which, in the US, sadly, is the default way people communicate).
Beeper is on the iOS App Store.
Beeper is on the iOS App Store.
https://beeper.notion.site/a96db72c53db4a9883e1775bcb61bb80?...
Microsoft got dinged for shipping IE by default, and so should Apple. Maybe you can argue Apple's not big enough yet, but I reckon we just need to wait a few years (87% of US teens use iPhones [0]).
[0] https://www.axios.com/2021/10/14/teen-iphone-use-spending-ha...
It wasn't just "you can't have a default web browser in IE", and reducing that case to that is ahistorical.
MS was prosecuted because they pressured OEMs into not installing a different browser by making that a requirement to be able to buy Windows licenses.
The alleged illegal act here was the combination of them 1) leveraging the power they had over OEMs to 2) prevent them from installing a different browser in an effort to 3) kill competing browsers.
It was never just about having a default browser, it was about the combination of 1, 2 and 3. There were some other incidents other than the browser that involved elements 1, 2 and 3, but the logic behind it was similar.
I say “alleged” because MS won on appeal and the DOJ decided to settle.
Apple on the other hand, just has a default messaging app. They’re not using their power to block other messaging apps with the intent to kill them, nor are they pressuring other parties to do or not do an act to protect their default messaging app.
The only thing that comes closest to the MS case is that Apple told carriers that they can’t have their bloatware preinstalled from the get go with the first iPhone. The problem however is that Apple, when they imposed that restriction, had no power over carriers, they were just entering the phone market after all. If anything the carriers had power over Apple, but they still choose to play ball despite this restriction.
I’d they’d tried to do that now, then it’d be a different story, because now Apple has quite some market dominance and it could be an antitrust issue.
That’s why carriers are free to impose limitations on certain functionality like hotspot use, because if Apple would force carriers, especially in a heavy handed way, then it could be explained as abusing their power.
Apple is mainly lucky for always having done Apple things, even when they were small in the respective market.
A lot of what Apple does, Apple has done from the beginning when they were insignificant in the context of a market. They couldn’t do introduce many of those things now while they’re so big.
So for all intents and purposes Apple is treated the same as MS.
I don't think Apple would care too much if they were forced to allow other applications to be designated as default SMS clients for the phone, though.
Which sort of makes sense. You don't technically don't have the obligation to make your platform open or support specific APIs regardless of your market share.
They ultimately got sued for leveraging their dominance in the PC operating systems market to dominate the browser market.
Apple doesn't lock anyone into messaging apps (they have pretty great system intergration for alternate apps!) - social groups do.
social demographics just use the chat that is closest to whatever they like to do online. iMessage is more of a "it's always there if I need it" thing as I get it, not so much something chosen out of confusion -- the social demographic is quite good at compartmentalizing their lives across many apps.
IMO, the buy-in for iMessage is an iPhone. If you contrast a $429 new iPhone with the buy-in required for other mainstream apps (share and license your private data + metadata with advertising companies in perpetuity), $429 doesn't seem unreasonable at all; but if you prefer to pay with your data instead, all platforms (including the iPhone) provide an option to do so via options like FB Messenger[1] and WhatsApp[2].
If Apple were to remove these alternative options, along with SMS/MMS, and support only iMessage communication - there would be a much better support for the claim that they "lock in" their users.
[0] https://i.imgur.com/PuPIrvf.png
[1] https://bgr.com/tech/app-privacy-labels-facebook-messenger-v...
[2] https://www.wired.co.uk/article/whatsapp-instagram-facebook-...
Most other countries are using some other messaging app, so clearly these aren't super significant hurdles. I agree "lock-in" is strong wording that probably doesn't apply to iMessage. But you cannot argue that iMessage is competing fairly with the likes of FB Messenger / Whatsapp / Telegram / Signal.
I love iMessage because it has a good feature set for family group chats (photo sharing is stellar), but I’m also happy with all the innovation, choice, and competition on features and governance provided by Signal, WhatsApp, Telegram, et al, each of which have their own strengths and have to respond to improvements by the others. The worst thing that could happen to innovation is if we were all using the same iMessage protocol forced into the stewardship of a DoJ mandated standards body.
I really can’t understand the obsession with default SMS functionality. Other than 2FA codes or setting up Uber on a new phone who gets an SMS more than once a month?