> So I think the specific answer to your question is "iMessage and its lack of support for <protocol (RCS?)>".
But there are other ways to send images or arbitrary files. Why does iMessage need to support it?
But there are other ways to send images or arbitrary files. Why does iMessage need to support it?
Why do you have to defend every little thing that Apple does as if you were their lawyer? I get that you like some parts of their walled garden, but why do Apple stans behave as if Apple was a sacred company that could do no wrong, when there examples like this that they are literally harming their own customers to protect their moat. I get why Apple does it, I don't get why anyone here would side with Apple.
If someone doesn't like the fact that the Messages app doesn't support <X>, they should not buy an iPhone then, if it's that important to them.
Pretty simple calculus. Apple made a choice, and then they can suffer the consequences of a lost sale because of that choice.
imessage (the protocol) doesn't. iPhones should, because it's a common way for people to communicate. It was fine for us to start laissez faire but now that we see Apple abusing things by not interoperating -- deliberately in order to sell more phones [1], the people should intervene.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/9/22375128/apple-imessage-an...
> "The #1 most difficult [reason] to leave the Apple universe app is iMessage ... iMessage amounts to serious lock-in"
> "moving iMessage to Android will hurt us more than help us, this email illustrates why."
iPhones are fully capable of transmitting images (and even other types of files--what an amazing world we live in). Feel free to install any of the numerous apps available that allow you to do this.
The US government claims that Apple is engaging in anticompetitive practices by degrading the behavior of iMessage when communicating to non-Apple devices.
Your stance seems to be, this should not be something for the government to be involved in, let the market decide.
This is ambiguous. Perhaps you believe that US antitrust laws shouldn't exist, or should be changed so they don't apply to this case, or actually don't apply to this case (ie the government is wrong that Apple's behavior violates the law).
Those are all coherent stances you could have, though I think it would be helpful if you identified which of them you hold if you want to engage in meaningful discourse with others.