or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google made last-ditch effort to block WhatsApp-Facebook deal, was willing to pay more than $19B
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google made last-ditch effort to block WhatsApp-Facebook deal, was willing to pay more than $19B - Page 3

post #81 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


Zero benefit for Apple. Why should Apple spend $$$ to subsidize free loaders (Android)? I tell me people if you want to get group messages, get an idevice or Mac. My brothers have idevices and most of my friends do as well.


It's the difference between being a serious player in a market and having a novelty gimmick that only users of your device can use.

post #82 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowitall View Post


No, Android users will install iMessage for the same reasons iOS users installed WhatsApp . And note that WhatsApp is currently the only cross platform solution.


Except for Skype, Facebooks current messenger, Viber, WeChat, Nimbuzz, plus don't Google and Yahoo also have cross platform alternatives. Twitter isn't far off being comparable either.

post #83 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post


It's the difference between being a serious player in a market and having a novelty gimmick that only users of your device can use.

Wait so now there is a messaging market? How is it a gimmick? iPads, iPhones, and Macs can all "talk" to each other.
post #84 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post


It's the difference between being a serious player in a market and having a novelty gimmick that only users of your device can use.

The situation is different when the "users" number in the hundreds of millions.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #85 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowitall View Post


No, Android users will install iMessage for the same reasons iOS users installed WhatsApp . And note that WhatsApp is currently the only cross platform solution.

Gtalk/Hangouts and Facebook messenger aren't cross-platform? Just about every  messaging system except iMessage is cross-platform.

post #86 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


Zero benefit for Apple. Why should Apple spend $$$ to subsidize free loaders (Android)? I tell me people if you want to get group messages, get an idevice or Mac. My brothers have idevices and most of my friends do as well.

What an arrogant statement to make. Who are you to tell your friends which device to use? There is a freedom of choice in democratic countries. My family has mostly Apple devices, too. But others may make different choices. Either because they cannot afford buying everything Apple for their families or because they don't want to. Should I unfriend them for that? Or be the guy who tries to force them to buy Apples stuff in order to communicate with me? Do I get paid by Apple? Not a dime. I pay for the products they sell me. That's it.

 

It costs very little (compared to Apples operational costs) to make something like iMessage universally available. It is probably too late to gain any significant market share anyways.  But it would also be a good service to Apple customers to make iMessage platform-agnostic. The value of a communication tool increases with the number of people you can reach. Limiting yourself or customers NEVER adds value. The so-called free-loaders (Android smartphones and contracts do still cost money as you should know) don't get subsidized by opening up to them. They already have other choices. It simply helps increasing the value of said service to those who bought Apples devices. That should be worth a couple of $$$ to Apple.

post #87 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

Gtalk/Hangouts and Facebook messenger aren't cross-platform? Just about every other messaging system except iMessage is cross-platform.

Right... So there are plenty of alternatives for people to choose from, further reinforcing the notion that Mark Zuckerberg has foolishly squandered Facebook money in a pointless bidding war with Google.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #88 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

The situation is different when the "users" number in the hundreds of millions.

And those hundreds of millions of users are using another service to message another hundreds of millions of family and friends.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #89 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
 

Didn't say "opportunity", that's your words appended to mine.

 

WhatsApp charges $0.99 per year of use (I think).  That is the case whether their users have Facebook accounts or not.  Not sure how that makes me all over the map, it's a simple point.

LOL. That's what makes it worth $19B (or $16+B, or whatever). Got it.

post #90 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Wait so now there is a messaging market? How is it a gimmick? iPads, iPhones, and Macs can all "talk" to each other.


Errr yeah, fairly massive one. SMS messages alone generate around 60 billion in revenue every year. Even Microsoft's Lync has now achieved a $1billion per year revenue now.

 

If your a business, iMessage and Facetime is a non-starter as a messaging / video chat solution as it's not going to work for all your users. Could you seriously imagine asking a client to do a meeting on Facetime?

 

In your personal life it's fine so long as you never want to communicate with someone who doesn't have an Apple device and as popular as they are the majority of the world doesn't have an Apple device. That makes it a gimmick. Cool tech but no serious plans to become a market leader.

post #91 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post
SMS messages alone generate around 60 billion in revenue every year. 

Cite?

post #92 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Let’s generously assume that WhatsApp will have FB’s margins as a stable business: that’s ~30%, or $138M per year. I won’t bore you with the details, but suffice it to say that under the most generous assumptions about future growth rates, risk-adjusted discount rates, reinvestment rates (after all, future cash flows don’t come free), etc., this is worth somewhere between ~$1B and ~$3B. That’s a far cry from $16+B. Justifying the latter price will require unbelievably high growth rates, achieved at essentially zero reinvestment, with a discount rate that is equal to the risk-free rate of interest.

from what I've read, their revenue (not cash flows, not profits) in 2013 were $20M.

I agree with you that the price was far too high but that seems to have been down to a bidding competition with Google - they're to blame for inflating the price so high in the first place. I just don't think it's a worthless buy, which is being suggested with the mentions of every WhatsApp user already being a Facebook user.

The figure of $20m in 2013 was profit on revenue of $100m but these are estimates as the company is private. I would guess it's based on iOS members paying up-front plus revenue estimates from previous year members on other platforms renewing subscriptions and then estimating profit on costs of similar companies. The iOS app used to be $0.99 one-off while other platforms were free and $1.99 after the first year. The iOS one went free mid-2013 with $0.99 after 1 year.

As far as margins, Facebook has over 6,000 employees, Twitter has over 2000, WhatsApp has 55 so that cuts some costs considerably. It's not clear what server infrastructure costs there are but potentially, they can share these costs to an extent with Facebook's infrastructure so they get increased revenue from both but the costs become lower than both (higher than Facebook and WhatsApp alone).

Let's say they did have $100m revenue in 2013 but their net margins are 30% due to the low staff count rather than Facebook's 20%. $30m net income. Say they lower their infrastructure costs by sharing with Facebook and push costs down to get to 40% margins. Revenue grows to $450m next year from this year's users so $180m net income. Ignore any migration from WhatsApp to Facebook but consider the other way and that the WhatsApp users grow to 1 billion and then slow down. With 40% margins, that's $400m net income in 2015. If it doesn't grow, that revenue keeps coming in forever.

To pay off $19b, it would have to run like that for about 50 years so that's why I agree it's far too high a purchase price but it can be justified if their numbers turn out as I described. A more realistic purchase price I'd say would take into consideration the possibility that people stop using it within 10 years as technology changes and that would give it no more than $5b value.

Facebook has 2.5 billion outstanding shares, 1.7 billion floated and we can safely assume these are not undervalued so the only objection to them doing this really is that they could have invested those shares in something other than WhatsApp. But who can say what's more important to Facebook's future goals than the people running Facebook?
post #93 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


I agree with you that the price was far too high but that seems to have been down to a bidding competition with Google - they're to blame for inflating the price so high in the first place. I just don't think it's a worthless buy, which is being suggested with the mentions of every WhatsApp user already being a Facebook user.

The figure of $20m in 2013 was profit on revenue of $100m but these are estimates as the company is private. I would guess it's based on iOS members paying up-front plus revenue estimates from previous year members on other platforms renewing subscriptions and then estimating profit on costs of similar companies. The iOS app used to be $0.99 one-off while other platforms were free and $1.99 after the first year. The iOS one went free mid-2013 with $0.99 after 1 year.

As far as margins, Facebook has over 6,000 employees, Twitter has over 2000, WhatsApp has 55 so that cuts some costs considerably. It's not clear what server infrastructure costs there are but potentially, they can share these costs to an extent with Facebook's infrastructure so they get increased revenue from both but the costs become lower than both (higher than Facebook and WhatsApp alone).

Let's say they did have $100m revenue in 2013 but their net margins are 30% due to the low staff count rather than Facebook's 20%. $30m net income. Say they lower their infrastructure costs by sharing with Facebook and push costs down to get to 40% margins. Revenue grows to $450m next year from this year's users so $180m net income. Ignore any migration from WhatsApp to Facebook but consider the other way and that the WhatsApp users grow to 1 billion and then slow down. With 40% margins, that's $400m net income in 2015. If it doesn't grow, that revenue keeps coming in forever.

To pay off $19b, it would have to run like that for about 50 years so that's why I agree it's far too high a purchase price but it can be justified if their numbers turn out as I described. A more realistic purchase price I'd say would take into consideration the possibility that people stop using it within 10 years as technology changes and that would give it no more than $5b value.

Facebook has 2.5 billion outstanding shares, 1.7 billion floated and we can safely assume these are not undervalued so the only objection to them doing this really is that they could have invested those shares in something other than WhatsApp. But who can say what's more important to Facebook's future goals than the people running Facebook?

That is pretty good description of the deals value. Yet, I think people are overly critical when it comes to purchase prices compared to market capitalization. Using the dcf method companies like Twitter, Amazon or Linkedin are also way overvalued.

post #94 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post
 

Cite?

http://www.telecoms.com/212062/global-sms-revenue-declines-for-first-time/

 

4th paragraph "In 2014, Deloitte expects operators to generate more than £60bn from SMS services in 2014" and it's an article on revenue declining.

post #95 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


The situation is different when the "users" number in the hundreds of millions.


Doesn't matter how many hundreds of millions there are when the person you want to message doesn't have an Apple device.

post #96 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post
 

LOL. That's what makes it worth $19B (or $16+B, or whatever). Got it.

Didn't say it was worth it.  No need for LOLs or the passive aggressive snark, as that was never the argument. If that's what you thought, then that explains why you quoted me and the matter can be dropped as a simple misunderstanding.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #97 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

Doesn't matter how many hundreds of millions there are when the person you want to message doesn't have an Apple device.

1) You're now talking about from the user's perspective but your original comment can't reasonably be about the user when you talk about serious players in the market.

2) As previously stated there is no incentive for Apple to expand iMessage to other platforms because of their rampant success. There is the app store so if you think iMessage is a "novelty gimmick" you have plenty of other options for cross-platforms messaging but it's hard to conceive that you'd own anything from Apple if you think the iMessage service is both a novelty and a gimmick.
Edited by SolipsismX - 2/21/14 at 3:31pm

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #98 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


1) You're now talking about from the user's perspective but your original comment can't reasonably be when about the user when you talk about serious players in the market.

2) As previously stated there is no incentive for Apple to expand iMessage to other platforms because of their rampant success. There is the app store so if you think iMessage is a "novelty gimmick" you have plenty of other options for cross-platforms messaging but it's hard to conceive that you'd own anything from Apple if you think the iMessage service is both a novelty and a gimmick.


Users are what market share is based on. What other perspective can you use to determine if something is serious or not other than the users. A messaging service where there is no possibility of messaging 86% of smartphone users (Google search said current iPhone UK market share is 13.6%) can hardly be called serious.

 

For the record I use iMessage and Facetime on an almost weekly basis to communicate with family as we all have iPads and Macs. But I wouldn't call it any more of a serious messaging platform than messaging someone on Xbox Live.

post #99 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian37 View Post

What an arrogant statement to make. Who are you to tell your friends which device to use? There is a freedom of choice in democratic countries. My family has mostly Apple devices, too. But others may make different choices. Either because they cannot afford buying everything Apple for their families or because they don't want to. Should I unfriend them for that? Or be the guy who tries to force them to buy Apples stuff in order to communicate with me? Do I get paid by Apple? Not a dime. I pay for the products they sell me. That's it.

It costs very little (compared to Apples operational costs) to make something like iMessage universally available. It is probably too late to gain any significant market share anyways.  But it would also be a good service to Apple customers to make iMessage platform-agnostic. The value of a communication tool increases with the number of people you can reach. Limiting yourself or customers NEVER adds value. The so-called free-loaders (Android smartphones and contracts do still cost money as you should know) don't get subsidized by opening up to them. They already have other choices. It simply helps increasing the value of said service to those who bought Apples devices. That should be worth a couple of $$$ to Apple.

I'm sorry but I can SMS Androiders just fine. They can SMS me as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post


Errr yeah, fairly massive one. SMS messages alone generate around 60 billion in revenue every year. Even Microsoft's Lync has now achieved a $1billion per year revenue now.

If your a business, iMessage and Facetime is a non-starter as a messaging / video chat solution as it's not going to work for all your users. Could you seriously imagine asking a client to do a meeting on Facetime?

In your personal life it's fine so long as you never want to communicate with someone who doesn't have an Apple device and as popular as they are the majority of the world doesn't have an Apple device. That makes it a gimmick. Cool tech but no serious plans to become a market leader.

Again, I can SMS non Apple owners just fine.
post #100 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

I'm sorry but I can SMS Androiders just fine. They can SMS me as well.
Again, I can SMS non Apple owners just fine.

So if using SMS is 'just fine' why create iMessage? Why are all these SMS alternatives so popular?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #101 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

So if using SMS is 'just fine' why create iMessage? Why are all these SMS alternatives so popular?

You must recall that before iMessage came along, Americans were paying per text message. Apple took that annoyance off the table for iOS users.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #102 of 165
I'd be curious to get some figures on all the lost revenue for Apple because iMessage isn't cross platform. Same for iTunes. If someone can show data that indicates Apple would make decent money off these things going cross platform then I'd support it. How many Android users would actually buy content from iTunes over Google Play? Or use iMessage over an existing service?
post #103 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
With 40% margins, that's $400m net income in 2015. If it doesn't grow, that revenue keeps coming in forever.

To pay off $19b, it would have to run like that for about 50 years ...

There’s a slight problem with your analysis: you’re ignoring something as basic as time value of money.

 

$19B today is nowhere near equal to ~50 years of $400M. At a growth-adjusted discount rate of, say, 10% (which is quite generous), basic arithmetic shows us that even forever won’t get us anywhere close. In fact, it’ll never get past $4B in value today (present value = 400M/.1 = 4B; that is just the sum of an infinite series).

 

PS: I am moving on with this, at this point....

post #104 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post
 

Cite?

http://www.telecoms.com/212062/global-sms-revenue-declines-for-first-time/

 

4th paragraph "In 2014, Deloitte expects operators to generate more than £60bn from SMS services in 2014" and it's an article on revenue declining.

Thank you.

post #105 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

You must recall that before iMessage came along, Americans were paying per text message. Apple took that annoyance off the table for iOS users.

Very few people were paying per text message.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #106 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post


Except for Skype, Facebooks current messenger, Viber, WeChat, Nimbuzz, plus don't Google and Yahoo also have cross platform alternatives. Twitter isn't far off being comparable either.

I can Google too, but the point is of course that WhatsApp is a text service that replaces SMS for free and does only that.
Note that it is tied to an existing mobile number, exactly the same as SMS (and that it's very easy to use because it uses your address book in a smart way).
Apples iMessages is almost identical in usage (and interface) and that implementation makes it so successful and unique.
So Apple has a chance to replace this service with iMessage when it creates an android client and by doing that destroying WhatsApp and seriously damage Facebook and improving the iOS user experience at the same time.
Looks like win win win to me.
post #107 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Very few people were paying per text message.

Your wrong, in Europe everyone was paying for SMS and it was extremely popular. This changed with the introduction of iMessage and WhatsApp (and WhatsApp gets most of the credits because android phones are a large majority over here).
Edited by knowitall - 2/21/14 at 11:31am
post #108 of 165
Doubt Apple will want anything to do with developing and supporting an Android app. You get the distinct impression that they only made their Windows apps against much kicking and screaming.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #109 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian37 View Post

What an arrogant statement to make. Who are you to tell your friends which device to use? There is a freedom of choice in democratic countries. My family has mostly Apple devices, too. But others may make different choices. Either because they cannot afford buying everything Apple for their families or because they don't want to. Should I unfriend them for that? Or be the guy who tries to force them to buy Apples stuff in order to communicate with me? Do I get paid by Apple? Not a dime. I pay for the products they sell me. That's it.

It costs very little (compared to Apples operational costs) to make something like iMessage universally available. It is probably too late to gain any significant market share anyways.  But it would also be a good service to Apple customers to make iMessage platform-agnostic. The value of a communication tool increases with the number of people you can reach. Limiting yourself or customers NEVER adds value. The so-called free-loaders (Android smartphones and contracts do still cost money as you should know) don't get subsidized by opening up to them. They already have other choices. It simply helps increasing the value of said service to those who bought Apples devices. That should be worth a couple of $$$ to Apple.

Exactly!
post #110 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

Doubt Apple will want anything to do with developing and supporting an Android app. You get the distinct impression that they only made their Windows apps against much kicking and screaming.

I wouldn't like to develop for Android either, but I would if it made sense.
And it does makes sense now, so I don't doubt it for a minute.
post #111 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowitall View Post

Your wrong, in Europe everyone was paying for SMS and it was extremely popular. This changed with the introduction of iMessage and WhatsApp (and WhatsApp gets most of the credits because android phones are a large majority over here).

The OP said Americans.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #112 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian37 View Post

What an arrogant statement to make. Who are you to tell your friends which device to use? There is a freedom of choice in democratic countries. My family has mostly Apple devices, too. But others may make different choices. Either because they cannot afford buying everything Apple for their families or because they don't want to. Should I unfriend them for that? Or be the guy who tries to force them to buy Apples stuff in order to communicate with me? Do I get paid by Apple? Not a dime. I pay for the products they sell me. That's it.

It costs very little (compared to Apples operational costs) to make something like iMessage universally available. It is probably too late to gain any significant market share anyways.  But it would also be a good service to Apple customers to make iMessage platform-agnostic. The value of a communication tool increases with the number of people you can reach. Limiting yourself or customers NEVER adds value. The so-called free-loaders (Android smartphones and contracts do still cost money as you should know) don't get subsidized by opening up to them. They already have other choices. It simply helps increasing the value of said service to those who bought Apples devices. That should be worth a couple of $$$ to Apple.

I see no problem with making suggestions to people. I recently made a suggestion for the WinPC vendors I think are best. I also told them that if they get a new WinPC instead of buying a Mac that I would no longer fix their machines. Even though I'm happy to assist others my time has my limits and therefore has value.

Once iMessage officially arrived and most everyone I knew was on the latest version of iOS I sent out an email stating that I was killing my SMS. If they are sent I wouldn't have received them. I basically said I won't read nor reply to your SMS messages so either use iMessages, email or call. That saved me quite a bit of money per month for a service I feel is

I think I've heard jungmark make similar comments over the years so my question to you is why can't he choose to not engage in group chat if it requires him to install yet another app when he's happy with iMessage?

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #113 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowitall View Post

I wouldn't like to develop for Android either, but I would if it made sense.
And it does makes sense now, so I don't doubt it for a minute.

Why does it make sense for Apple?
post #114 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Why does it make sense for Apple?

Because it enhances the UX, sheesh.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #115 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Because it enhances the UX, sheesh.

But it will still be on Android.
post #116 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

But it will still be on Android.

Is that anymore worse than iTunes for Windows? How many millions upon millions less devices would've Apple sold if there wasn't iTunes for Windows?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #117 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Is that anymore worse than iTunes for Windows? How many millions upon millions less devices would've Apple sold if there wasn't iTunes for Windows?

It's a lot worse. Apple made iTunes for Windows so it could sell iPods, and then later iPhones and iPads. I don't see any argument that would help sell iDevices if they made iMessage for Android. I'd argue that moving iOS apps and services to other platforms just dilutes iOS which in turn can make it easier for people to move to a different platform because then a single HW feature or spec can then be the decider.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #118 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post
 

 

It makes Microsoft's purchase of Skype look really cheap in comparison and everyone thought that was expensive!

 

It's not about the functionality though, its about the users and them actually using the service. To question value you also have to look at how much the SMS market is worth, as a strong competitor to it, that's where its potential value is going to come from.

 

Yes, to someone who has no one, I can see the value in having many. However, for Facebook, launching their own and gaining quick adoption would be easy, and far, far cheaper than this acquisition. 

post #119 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Is that anymore worse than iTunes for Windows? How many millions upon millions less devices would've Apple sold if there wasn't iTunes for Windows?

It's a lot worse. Apple made iTunes for Windows so it could sell iPods, and then later iPhones and iPads. I don't see any argument that would help sell iDevices if they made iMessage for Android. I'd argue that moving iOS apps and services to other platforms just dilutes iOS which in turn can make it easier for people to move to a different platform because then a single HW feature or spec can then be the decider.

I am with dasanman69 and knowitall (ugh) on this one.

 

Just as it has with AppleTV, iPad, iPod, iPhone, iTunes, and Safari, it’s way past time for Apple to make its communication/networking offerings – e.g., FaceTime, iMessages, iCloud – platform-agnostic. Such products and services have even more value when users, especially Apple users, can communicate and network with more, rather then fewer, people. It's simply a question of positive network externalities.

 

Arguments to the contrary are, frankly, knee-jerk throwbacks, I am afraid.

 

(Btw, what do you mean by ‘dilutes’?)

 

(Edited)

post #120 of 165
Well. I think you are mixing things up a bit. Safari, Music, etc. Those are apps that add value to the iOS platform as they are. iMessage is different. In communication cross-platform usability is a must. I mean Pages allows you to export documents in word-compatible format or as a pdf. Isn't that the same thing. If you shut out other platforms from a product like iMessage you are basically crippling it intentionally for the people who bought your devices. So basically to hurt people who bought competing products Apple seems to be willing to hurt (for lack of a better word) people who bought an Apple device. If your logic applies that is.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google made last-ditch effort to block WhatsApp-Facebook deal, was willing to pay more than $19B