Shocking! Here are some other Business 101 shocking facts - I just learned that CBS kept its content away from ABC to lock in viewers! And get this, At Costco, you buy a membership and only members can shop there. Totally locked in. AND insurance companies look at the costs and likely hood of event to decide on premiums, for instance what it costs you to get coverage for windshield repair, they decide that cost on the likelihood of it happening and the how much it costs to do the repair!
The list is long. I even heard that Netflix sells a membership and you can't watch what they make unless you 'buy in' to their entertainment eco-system!
And I went to buy a new Subaru. Guess what. The Ford dealership doesn't sell them ! Totally locked out of that market!
Idiots are astounded at how the world operates.
You have misinterpreted the role of lock in.
Apple didn't want to lock you into iMessage but into the iOS ecosystem itself. That would mean, in your analogies at least, that once inside Costco for example, you would find it very inconvenient to get out.
Another interpretation would be that once you have your Costco membership, you are also free to join other membership schemes at no added inconvenience to you.
Clearly that does not equate well to phone platforms as very few people can afford or would want to run two daily drivers on different platforms.
They are very different situations.
It is you that have misinterpreted the role of a lock in. The whole .... give away the razor and sell the blades ...... is based on a "lock in".
iMessage is not the only text messaging app available for iOS users. Just because an iOS user uses iMessage, it doesn't mean that they can't use any other messaging app. It cost nothing to use one of the other more popular texting apps. iOS users are not forced to use iMessage. iOS is not a monopoly. iMessage is not a monopoly on iOS. iOS users do not have to buy an Android device or carry devices for two platforms, in order to text Android users. So tell us how exactly is iMessage a lock in that should be a concern for Apple under anti-trust? Just because they might have used the term "lock in" in an internal meeting? Even if they did, iMessage is no more a "lock in" than 1000's of other "lock ins" that are being used by other companies. And don't tell use that ..... that's for the investigators to determine. Different countries might see it differently and Apple is being looked at under a microscope. The is a cop-out reply.
I have maybe half a dozen Dewalt 18v cordless tools and nearly a dozen 18v batteries for them. If I need a cordless angle grinder, I will only be looking at a Dewalt. Why? Because the nearly dozen Dewalt batteries I have do not fit a Milwaukee or Makita or Bosch or any other makers cordless tool for that matter. (BTW- Dewalt batteries do fit some Black and Decker cordless tools because Dewalt is owned by Black and Decker.) Batteries for cordless tools are not cheap. At least not the good ones. They are a "lock in". It would be much more expensive and inconvenient for me to buy another brand angle grinder, plus several batteries and the charger, than it would for me to just buy the more expensive Dewalt angle grinder without batteries and charger. I don't want to be carrying two different type of batteries and chargers with me, when I'm helping a friend do some remodeling. Does that mean that Dewalt should be investigated under anti-trust for their cordless tool batteries being a "lock in", because they only work on Dewalt cordless tools?
Please re-read the article and comments.
No-one knows if the lock-in exists. That would have to be determined by the courts and consumer protection bodies.
There is a claim that Apple acted on the idea of locking customers in.
That makes all references on lock-in hypothetical and should be interpreted that way.
IMO, your the Costco example (and all the others) were poor analogies for the reasons I gave.
We are pre-supposing that the lock-in did in fact exist (in Apple's mindset at least) and was effective.
Now it has to be demonstrated for it to have any value.
Part of this is based on the misconception that Apple is a
hardware company that uses software and ecosystem to suppress other
hardware vendors.
The foundation of that argument is false. Instead,
Apple is NOT a hardware (only) company. It's software and ecosystems
are integral parts of its "Product". For example: until recently no
Mac that had been sold in the last decade was in any significant way
different from any Windows laptop -- except for the software and
ecosystem it supported. For Mac's, the hardware is (still) not
significantly different from any high end Windows machine. But the
software and ecosystem are what set them apart.
... So why could any competitor demand that Apple open up its software and ecosystem to them?
... How would that be different from GM demanding that Tesla let them run their self driving technology on GM cars?
........ Is Tesla's self driving technology superior to GM's? YES! ........ Does it help Tesla sell it's cars? YES! ........ Is it a reason to buy a Tesla over and GM? YES! ........ Does it give Tesla a competitive advantage over GM? YES! ........ Is Tesla obligated to share it with GM? HELL NO!
Tesla Full Self Driving is in fact, less capable than GM's Cruise;
"All the above considered, Cadillac's Super Cruise may not yet be able to match all the functions of Tesla's Autopilot, Autosteer, and Navigate on Autopilot, but in areas the two systems overlap (which is most of them), Super Cruise performs at least as well as the Autopilot suite and in some cases performs better. All the while, it does so more safely by tracking the human driver's attention and preparing them as much as possible as early as possible to take back control of the vehicle. Tesla moved fast, broke things, and radically advanced the state of the art, but Cadillac's more considered approach is the appropriate one for the vast majority of drivers, and Super Cruise should be made available on as many Cadillac and other GM models as quickly as possible if systems like these are to make any measurable impact on road safety as Tesla has so often claimed Autopilot does."
A quick search produced Best iMessage Alternatives in 2021 Ten (count them) alternatives to iMessage (2011 October 12) all available on iOS. Those that predate iMessage are in bold with the dates they first appeared provided. Unless italicized they also exist on Android
WhatsApp (2009 February) Facebook Messenger (2011 August 9) Kik Messenger (2010 October 19) Signal (2014 July 29 ) Telegram Messenger (Telegram X on Android) ( 2013 August 14) WeChat (2011 January 21) Viber Messenger (2010 December 2) Skype (2003 August 29, came to iOS 2017 February 16) LINE (can't find a date) KakaoTalk (2010 March 18)
Of these only iMessage is not on andoird. So the idea where was some form of lock-in is on par with Trump's election being stolen from him. Apple is going to rip Epic a new one if Epic is stupid enough to try to claim iMessage was a lock in.
A quick search produced Best iMessage Alternatives in 2021 Ten (count them) alternatives to iMessage (2011 October 12) all available on iOS. Those that predate iMessage are in bold with the dates they first appeared provided. Unless italicized they also exist on Android
WhatsApp (2009 February) Facebook Messenger (2011 August 9) Kik Messenger (2010 October 19) Signal (2014 July 29 ) Telegram Messenger (Telegram X on Android) ( 2013 August 14) WeChat (2011 January 21) Viber Messenger (2010 December 2) Skype (2003 August 29, came to iOS 2017 February 16) LINE (can't find a date) KakaoTalk (2010 March 18)
Of these only iMessage is not on andoird. So the idea where was some form of lock-in is on par with Trump's election being stolen from him. Apple is going to rip Epic a new one if Epic is stupid enough to try to claim iMessage was a lock in.
Epic isn't claiming (in a literal sense) that iMessage was a lock in.
It is claiming that Apple considered it a lock in tool.
From your list, many came after iMessage and none were preinstalled with iOS/Mac OS. Can Skype really be considered an IM app? It's been so long since I used it that I can't remember now.
In terms of timelines, remember that iMessage replaced iChat (from almost a decade earlier) in the Apple ecosystem. That gave it a lot of traction.
The majority of hardware features that make it onto Android first are simply ideas Apple patented years ago but either haven’t perfected yet, or because they need them in such vast quantities that it’s easier for Android device makers to rush to market when by comparison they sell very few handsets! Beyond that they bring pointless fad features that Apple purposefully leaked as a distraction. Don’t get me wrong it’s not always the case and sometimes Apple may introduce features that genuinely debuted on other handsets, but 90% of the time that is exactly what happens.
100% wrong and utterly delusional. Most Android innovations are developed either by Google's software division or Samsung's component division. Other than the Ax/Mx chips Apple doesn't do basic components. Never has. That sort of basic physics/chemistry/solid state electronics stuff has never been their cup of tea. Samsung meanwhile is currently the best in the world at it. And no, Apple has never done software innovation either. They are a hardware company, plus OS because that is hardware implemented as software. Apple's software deficiencies are what cost them the market share against Microsoft and Wintel, and it is what cost them the market share against Google and Android. If you believe otherwise, then you are no different from those sports fans who are convinced that A. their team is going to win the championship every year and B. that it is going to happen because their players and coaches aren't just better athletes than the competition but better people with better fans, traditions, institutions etc. In other words, total nonsense.
I don’t want to start a PC vs Mac or iOS vs Android war. However, Apple’s low market share in Mac or iPhones are simply due to their business model. They make the hardware and software together as a bundle. You can’t run (officially) MacOS on any other hardware than Apple’s. You can’t run iOS on any other hardware other than Apple’s. This naturally limits their market share, no matter how good they are. It’s not their “software deficiencies” causing lower market share. I will admit that when their software really sucked (late 90’s), their market share was MUCH lower. But iOS doesn’t suck, so their market share is higher. But will never top 50% worldwide.
Shocking! Here are some other Business 101 shocking facts - I just learned that CBS kept its content away from ABC to lock in viewers! And get this, At Costco, you buy a membership and only members can shop there. Totally locked in. AND insurance companies look at the costs and likely hood of event to decide on premiums, for instance what it costs you to get coverage for windshield repair, they decide that cost on the likelihood of it happening and the how much it costs to do the repair!
The list is long. I even heard that Netflix sells a membership and you can't watch what they make unless you 'buy in' to their entertainment eco-system!
And I went to buy a new Subaru. Guess what. The Ford dealership doesn't sell them ! Totally locked out of that market!
Idiots are astounded at how the world operates.
You have misinterpreted the role of lock in.
Apple didn't want to lock you into iMessage but into the iOS ecosystem itself. That would mean, in your analogies at least, that once inside Costco for example, you would find it very inconvenient to get out.
Another interpretation would be that once you have your Costco membership, you are also free to join other membership schemes at no added inconvenience to you.
Clearly that does not equate well to phone platforms as very few people can afford or would want to run two daily drivers on different platforms.
They are very different situations.
It is you that have misinterpreted the role of a lock in. The whole .... give away the razor and sell the blades ...... is based on a "lock in".
iMessage is not the only text messaging app available for iOS users. Just because an iOS user uses iMessage, it doesn't mean that they can't use any other messaging app. It cost nothing to use one of the other more popular texting apps. iOS users are not forced to use iMessage. iOS is not a monopoly. iMessage is not a monopoly on iOS. iOS users do not have to buy an Android device or carry devices for two platforms, in order to text Android users. So tell us how exactly is iMessage a lock in that should be a concern for Apple under anti-trust? Just because they might have used the term "lock in" in an internal meeting? Even if they did, iMessage is no more a "lock in" than 1000's of other "lock ins" that are being used by other companies. And don't tell use that ..... that's for the investigators to determine. Different countries might see it differently and Apple is being looked at under a microscope. The is a cop-out reply.
I have maybe half a dozen Dewalt 18v cordless tools and nearly a dozen 18v batteries for them. If I need a cordless angle grinder, I will only be looking at a Dewalt. Why? Because the nearly dozen Dewalt batteries I have do not fit a Milwaukee or Makita or Bosch or any other makers cordless tool for that matter. (BTW- Dewalt batteries do fit some Black and Decker cordless tools because Dewalt is owned by Black and Decker.) Batteries for cordless tools are not cheap. At least not the good ones. They are a "lock in". It would be much more expensive and inconvenient for me to buy another brand angle grinder, plus several batteries and the charger, than it would for me to just buy the more expensive Dewalt angle grinder without batteries and charger. I don't want to be carrying two different type of batteries and chargers with me, when I'm helping a friend do some remodeling. Does that mean that Dewalt should be investigated under anti-trust for their cordless tool batteries being a "lock in", because they only work on Dewalt cordless tools?
Please re-read the article and comments.
No-one knows if the lock-in exists. That would have to be determined by the courts and consumer protection bodies.
There is a claim that Apple acted on the idea of locking customers in.
That makes all references on lock-in hypothetical and should be interpreted that way.
IMO, your the Costco example (and all the others) were poor analogies for the reasons I gave.
We are pre-supposing that the lock-in did in fact exist (in Apple's mindset at least) and was effective.
Now it has to be demonstrated for it to have any value.
NO, there is no question that iMessage serves as a "lock in". None what-so-ever. There is nothing hypothetical about it. iMessage is just one of many iOS features that Apple uses to keep iOS users from wanting to switch platforms or attract Android users to iOS. iOS only features like Apple Map, Safari, Apple Pay and FaceTime are other features that can be considered "lock ins". But none of these Apple iOS only features are a matter of concern for anti-trust because Apple do not have a monopoly on any of them, Apple users are not forced to use any of them, there are other apps in iOS that does the same thing and there are are similar features on Android that does the same thing. Even though some of them might not be as good or easy to use as the ones by Apple on iOS.
Anti-trust lawyers don't need a blow hard like Sweeney to tell them that Apple uses iMessage and other iOS features as "lock ins". They already know this and they don't care because there is nothing illegal about "lock ins". Otherwise, by now, Apple would have been charged with anti-trust for having features and software that are only available on iOS or OS X, that serves to keep users on their platforms or attract users from the other platforms.
The question is why do YOU think iMessage should be looked as an anti-trust matter? Just because Sweeney said so? You seem to be of the opinion that it could be an anti-trust matter if it can be proven that Apple used iMessage as a "lock in" to keep iOS users on their platform. Why? The examples given here of where other companies uses "lock ins", are relevant. It's just you see them as poor analogies? Why? All "lock ins" serves the same purpose, no matter how it's done or who's doing it.
What difference does it make whether Apple use of iMessage as a "lock in", was effective or not? If it wasn't effective, then it wouldn't be considered a "lock in". There is no such thing as a non-effective "lock in". The term "non-effective lock in", is an oxymoron. And if it was effective, it wouldn't be a matter of anti-trust anyway. iPhones and iPads are not monopolies. iOS is not a monopoly. iMessage is not a monopoly. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Apple using iMessage as a way to keep iDevice users from wanting to switch to an Android device. What monopoly is Apple abusing?
There is a world of difference between having a "lock in" that serves to keeps your customers from wanting to switch and having a "lock in" that prevents your customers from switching. iMessage in no way prevents iOS users from switching to Android or prevent them from using one of many iOS apps that allows them to send text messages to Android users. (Without having to pay for or also carry an Android device.)
IMHO- An Apple Watch is way more an effective "lock in" than iMessage. In order to use all the features of an Apple Watch, you need an iPhone. Why would Apple even consider writing software so an Apple Watch can work on an Android phone? And even if it was found out that Apple did write the app needed for an Apple Watch to fully work on Android phones but decided to not released it, would that be an anti-trust matter? Or is it only an anti-trust matter if some one at Apple used the term "lock in", when deciding not to release it?
Shocking! Here are some other Business 101 shocking facts - I just learned that CBS kept its content away from ABC to lock in viewers! And get this, At Costco, you buy a membership and only members can shop there. Totally locked in. AND insurance companies look at the costs and likely hood of event to decide on premiums, for instance what it costs you to get coverage for windshield repair, they decide that cost on the likelihood of it happening and the how much it costs to do the repair!
The list is long. I even heard that Netflix sells a membership and you can't watch what they make unless you 'buy in' to their entertainment eco-system!
And I went to buy a new Subaru. Guess what. The Ford dealership doesn't sell them ! Totally locked out of that market!
Idiots are astounded at how the world operates.
You have misinterpreted the role of lock in.
Apple didn't want to lock you into iMessage but into the iOS ecosystem itself. That would mean, in your analogies at least, that once inside Costco for example, you would find it very inconvenient to get out.
Another interpretation would be that once you have your Costco membership, you are also free to join other membership schemes at no added inconvenience to you.
Clearly that does not equate well to phone platforms as very few people can afford or would want to run two daily drivers on different platforms.
They are very different situations.
It is you that have misinterpreted the role of a lock in. The whole .... give away the razor and sell the blades ...... is based on a "lock in".
iMessage is not the only text messaging app available for iOS users. Just because an iOS user uses iMessage, it doesn't mean that they can't use any other messaging app. It cost nothing to use one of the other more popular texting apps. iOS users are not forced to use iMessage. iOS is not a monopoly. iMessage is not a monopoly on iOS. iOS users do not have to buy an Android device or carry devices for two platforms, in order to text Android users. So tell us how exactly is iMessage a lock in that should be a concern for Apple under anti-trust? Just because they might have used the term "lock in" in an internal meeting? Even if they did, iMessage is no more a "lock in" than 1000's of other "lock ins" that are being used by other companies. And don't tell use that ..... that's for the investigators to determine. Different countries might see it differently and Apple is being looked at under a microscope. The is a cop-out reply.
I have maybe half a dozen Dewalt 18v cordless tools and nearly a dozen 18v batteries for them. If I need a cordless angle grinder, I will only be looking at a Dewalt. Why? Because the nearly dozen Dewalt batteries I have do not fit a Milwaukee or Makita or Bosch or any other makers cordless tool for that matter. (BTW- Dewalt batteries do fit some Black and Decker cordless tools because Dewalt is owned by Black and Decker.) Batteries for cordless tools are not cheap. At least not the good ones. They are a "lock in". It would be much more expensive and inconvenient for me to buy another brand angle grinder, plus several batteries and the charger, than it would for me to just buy the more expensive Dewalt angle grinder without batteries and charger. I don't want to be carrying two different type of batteries and chargers with me, when I'm helping a friend do some remodeling. Does that mean that Dewalt should be investigated under anti-trust for their cordless tool batteries being a "lock in", because they only work on Dewalt cordless tools?
Please re-read the article and comments.
No-one knows if the lock-in exists. That would have to be determined by the courts and consumer protection bodies.
There is a claim that Apple acted on the idea of locking customers in.
That makes all references on lock-in hypothetical and should be interpreted that way.
IMO, your the Costco example (and all the others) were poor analogies for the reasons I gave.
We are pre-supposing that the lock-in did in fact exist (in Apple's mindset at least) and was effective.
Now it has to be demonstrated for it to have any value.
NO, there is no question that iMessage serves as a "lock in". None what-so-ever. There is nothing hypothetical about it. iMessage is just one of many iOS features that Apple uses to keep iOS users from wanting to switch platforms or attract Android users to iOS. iOS only features like Apple Map, Safari, Apple Pay and FaceTime are other features that can be considered "lock ins". But none of these Apple iOS only features are a matter of concern for anti-trust because Apple do not have a monopoly on any of them, Apple users are not forced to use any of them, there are other apps in iOS that does the same thing and there are are similar features on Android that does the same thing. Even though some of them might not be as good or easy to use as the ones by Apple on iOS.
Anti-trust lawyers don't need a blow hard like Sweeney to tell them that Apple uses iMessage and other iOS features as "lock ins". They already know this and they don't care because there is nothing illegal about "lock ins". Otherwise, by now, Apple would have been charged with anti-trust for having features and software that are only available on iOS or OS X, that serves to keep users on their platforms or attract users from the other platforms.
The question is why do YOU think iMessage should be looked as an anti-trust matter? Just because Sweeney said so? You seem to be of the opinion that it could be an anti-trust matter if it can be proven that Apple used iMessage as a "lock in" to keep iOS users on their platform. Why? The examples given here of where other companies uses "lock ins", are relevant. It's just you see them as poor analogies? Why? All "lock ins" serves the same purpose, no matter how it's done or who's doing it.
What difference does it make whether Apple use of iMessage as a "lock in", was effective or not? If it wasn't effective, then it wouldn't be considered a "lock in". There is no such thing as a non-effective "lock in". The term "non-effective lock in", is an oxymoron. And if it was effective, it wouldn't be a matter of anti-trust anyway. iPhones and iPads are not monopolies. iOS is not a monopoly. iMessage is not a monopoly. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Apple using iMessage as a way to keep iDevice users from wanting to switch to an Android device. What monopoly is Apple abusing?
There is a world of difference between having a "lock in" that serves to keeps your customers from wanting to switch and having a "lock in" that prevents your customers from switching. iMessage in no way prevents iOS users from switching to Android or prevent them from using one of many iOS apps that allows them to send text messages to Android users. (Without having to pay for or also carry an Android device.)
IMHO- An Apple Watch is way more an effective "lock in" than iMessage. In order to use all the features of an Apple Watch, you need an iPhone. Why would Apple even consider writing software so an Apple Watch can work on an Android phone? And even if it was found out that Apple did write the app needed for an Apple Watch to fully work on Android phones but decided to not released it, would that be an anti-trust matter? Or is it only an anti-trust matter if some one at Apple used the term "lock in", when deciding not to release it?
What I think isn't important. What I've said is that the analogies were poor and we'll have to see how things play out.
I also said that if it is proven that Apple did see iMessage as a lock-in mechanism, it wouldn't bode well.
I definitely wouldn't be as sure of things as you are. Times change.
I wouldn't like to go out on a limb because I think it could swing either way.
Things are ok until they're not ok. Many things are legal until they're not legal. Many 'accepted' practices from the past are now not accepted.
Remember situation involving preset default search engines in browsers? That was fine for years but then late last year the US government took issue with Google.
Here is just a snippet of what they had to say:
"For a general search engine, by far the most effective means of distribution is to be the preset default general search engine for mobile and computer search access points. Even where users can change the default, they rarely do. This leaves the preset default general search engine with de facto exclusivity. As Google itself has recognized, this is particularly true on mobile devices, where defaults are especially sticky.
If you swap out 'search engine' for 'IM App', how much of a difference is there between the two cases?
Can you at least see some parallels?
I can at least see why Epic might be throwing this into the soup.
Apple choosing to not give other platforms access to its greatest features is not locking people in. It’s creating great products and services. For its customers.
Android doesn’t even factor.
Of course giving your hard earned feature set to competitors will harm more than help. Nothing new and nothing to see there.
Duh.
That doesn’t equal “the reason we did not give away our inventions to competitors is to lock people in.
It’s called building a great product. You know, the kind that YOUR CUSTOMERS benefit from. Not your competitors.
This isn’t a search engine or web browser.
It’s a secure, richly featured messaging platform. And a differentiator of iOS from the also-rans.
When you create something, that’s credit to you. If it’s done exceptionally well, then it is a differentiator that sets you apart from the competition.
You give that away and all of a sudden what puts you ahead is gone.
Who in their right mind would do that?
The first rule of business: make money.
Giving away something to competitors that customers want badly is pushing people out of your store.
And these idiots are actually trying to mss as me it seem like Apple is somehow wrong for building s as ndi marketing an exclusive killer feature?
Shocking! Here are some other Business 101 shocking facts - I just learned that CBS kept its content away from ABC to lock in viewers! And get this, At Costco, you buy a membership and only members can shop there. Totally locked in. AND insurance companies look at the costs and likely hood of event to decide on premiums, for instance what it costs you to get coverage for windshield repair, they decide that cost on the likelihood of it happening and the how much it costs to do the repair!
The list is long. I even heard that Netflix sells a membership and you can't watch what they make unless you 'buy in' to their entertainment eco-system!
And I went to buy a new Subaru. Guess what. The Ford dealership doesn't sell them ! Totally locked out of that market!
Idiots are astounded at how the world operates.
You have misinterpreted the role of lock in.
Apple didn't want to lock you into iMessage but into the iOS ecosystem itself. That would mean, in your analogies at least, that once inside Costco for example, you would find it very inconvenient to get out.
Another interpretation would be that once you have your Costco membership, you are also free to join other membership schemes at no added inconvenience to you.
Clearly that does not equate well to phone platforms as very few people can afford or would want to run two daily drivers on different platforms.
They are very different situations.
It is you that have misinterpreted the role of a lock in. The whole .... give away the razor and sell the blades ...... is based on a "lock in".
iMessage is not the only text messaging app available for iOS users. Just because an iOS user uses iMessage, it doesn't mean that they can't use any other messaging app. It cost nothing to use one of the other more popular texting apps. iOS users are not forced to use iMessage. iOS is not a monopoly. iMessage is not a monopoly on iOS. iOS users do not have to buy an Android device or carry devices for two platforms, in order to text Android users. So tell us how exactly is iMessage a lock in that should be a concern for Apple under anti-trust? Just because they might have used the term "lock in" in an internal meeting? Even if they did, iMessage is no more a "lock in" than 1000's of other "lock ins" that are being used by other companies. And don't tell use that ..... that's for the investigators to determine. Different countries might see it differently and Apple is being looked at under a microscope. The is a cop-out reply.
I have maybe half a dozen Dewalt 18v cordless tools and nearly a dozen 18v batteries for them. If I need a cordless angle grinder, I will only be looking at a Dewalt. Why? Because the nearly dozen Dewalt batteries I have do not fit a Milwaukee or Makita or Bosch or any other makers cordless tool for that matter. (BTW- Dewalt batteries do fit some Black and Decker cordless tools because Dewalt is owned by Black and Decker.) Batteries for cordless tools are not cheap. At least not the good ones. They are a "lock in". It would be much more expensive and inconvenient for me to buy another brand angle grinder, plus several batteries and the charger, than it would for me to just buy the more expensive Dewalt angle grinder without batteries and charger. I don't want to be carrying two different type of batteries and chargers with me, when I'm helping a friend do some remodeling. Does that mean that Dewalt should be investigated under anti-trust for their cordless tool batteries being a "lock in", because they only work on Dewalt cordless tools?
Please re-read the article and comments.
No-one knows if the lock-in exists. That would have to be determined by the courts and consumer protection bodies.
There is a claim that Apple acted on the idea of locking customers in.
That makes all references on lock-in hypothetical and should be interpreted that way.
IMO, your the Costco example (and all the others) were poor analogies for the reasons I gave.
We are pre-supposing that the lock-in did in fact exist (in Apple's mindset at least) and was effective.
Now it has to be demonstrated for it to have any value.
NO, there is no question that iMessage serves as a "lock in". None what-so-ever. There is nothing hypothetical about it. iMessage is just one of many iOS features that Apple uses to keep iOS users from wanting to switch platforms or attract Android users to iOS. iOS only features like Apple Map, Safari, Apple Pay and FaceTime are other features that can be considered "lock ins". But none of these Apple iOS only features are a matter of concern for anti-trust because Apple do not have a monopoly on any of them, Apple users are not forced to use any of them, there are other apps in iOS that does the same thing and there are are similar features on Android that does the same thing. Even though some of them might not be as good or easy to use as the ones by Apple on iOS.
Anti-trust lawyers don't need a blow hard like Sweeney to tell them that Apple uses iMessage and other iOS features as "lock ins". They already know this and they don't care because there is nothing illegal about "lock ins". Otherwise, by now, Apple would have been charged with anti-trust for having features and software that are only available on iOS or OS X, that serves to keep users on their platforms or attract users from the other platforms.
The question is why do YOU think iMessage should be looked as an anti-trust matter? Just because Sweeney said so? You seem to be of the opinion that it could be an anti-trust matter if it can be proven that Apple used iMessage as a "lock in" to keep iOS users on their platform. Why? The examples given here of where other companies uses "lock ins", are relevant. It's just you see them as poor analogies? Why? All "lock ins" serves the same purpose, no matter how it's done or who's doing it.
What difference does it make whether Apple use of iMessage as a "lock in", was effective or not? If it wasn't effective, then it wouldn't be considered a "lock in". There is no such thing as a non-effective "lock in". The term "non-effective lock in", is an oxymoron. And if it was effective, it wouldn't be a matter of anti-trust anyway. iPhones and iPads are not monopolies. iOS is not a monopoly. iMessage is not a monopoly. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Apple using iMessage as a way to keep iDevice users from wanting to switch to an Android device. What monopoly is Apple abusing?
There is a world of difference between having a "lock in" that serves to keeps your customers from wanting to switch and having a "lock in" that prevents your customers from switching. iMessage in no way prevents iOS users from switching to Android or prevent them from using one of many iOS apps that allows them to send text messages to Android users. (Without having to pay for or also carry an Android device.)
IMHO- An Apple Watch is way more an effective "lock in" than iMessage. In order to use all the features of an Apple Watch, you need an iPhone. Why would Apple even consider writing software so an Apple Watch can work on an Android phone? And even if it was found out that Apple did write the app needed for an Apple Watch to fully work on Android phones but decided to not released it, would that be an anti-trust matter? Or is it only an anti-trust matter if some one at Apple used the term "lock in", when deciding not to release it?
What I think isn't important. What I've said is that the analogies were poor and we'll have to see how things play out.
I also said that if it is proven that Apple did see iMessage as a lock-in mechanism, it wouldn't bode well.
I definitely wouldn't be as sure of things as you are. Times change.
I wouldn't like to go out on a limb because I think it could swing either way.
Things are ok until they're not ok. Many things are legal until they're not legal. Many 'accepted' practices from the past are now not accepted.
Remember situation involving preset default search engines in browsers? That was fine for years but then late last year the US government took issue with Google.
Here is just a snippet of what they had to say:
"For a general search engine, by far the most effective means of distribution is to be the preset default general search engine for mobile and computer search access points. Even where users can change the default, they rarely do. This leaves the preset default general search engine with de facto exclusivity. As Google itself has recognized, this is particularly true on mobile devices, where defaults are especially sticky.
If you swap out 'search engine' for 'IM App', how much of a difference is there between the two cases?
Can you at least see some parallels?
I can at least see why Epic might be throwing this into the soup.
Lol
if I run a search engine, MY COMPANY (not someone else) gathers customers by installing on the most devices on earth - even devices I do t make - especially if it’s an ad revenue thing, because then I AM THE ONE PROFITTING off of your platform.
search makes sense to do this.
An IM app?
Heck no.
Case in point: Apple Music is multiplatform. Why? Because Apple gains customers and revenue that way.
So this argument is DOA.
IM? That’s a platform service that differentiates iOS from the other crap that’s out there. Apple gains nothing from giving away that feature. If anything, it de-incentivized customers to return or new customers from signing up.
Shocking! Here are some other Business 101 shocking facts - I just learned that CBS kept its content away from ABC to lock in viewers! And get this, At Costco, you buy a membership and only members can shop there. Totally locked in. AND insurance companies look at the costs and likely hood of event to decide on premiums, for instance what it costs you to get coverage for windshield repair, they decide that cost on the likelihood of it happening and the how much it costs to do the repair!
The list is long. I even heard that Netflix sells a membership and you can't watch what they make unless you 'buy in' to their entertainment eco-system!
And I went to buy a new Subaru. Guess what. The Ford dealership doesn't sell them ! Totally locked out of that market!
Idiots are astounded at how the world operates.
You have misinterpreted the role of lock in.
Apple didn't want to lock you into iMessage but into the iOS ecosystem itself. That would mean, in your analogies at least, that once inside Costco for example, you would find it very inconvenient to get out.
Another interpretation would be that once you have your Costco membership, you are also free to join other membership schemes at no added inconvenience to you.
Clearly that does not equate well to phone platforms as very few people can afford or would want to run two daily drivers on different platforms.
They are very different situations.
It is you that have misinterpreted the role of a lock in. The whole .... give away the razor and sell the blades ...... is based on a "lock in".
iMessage is not the only text messaging app available for iOS users. Just because an iOS user uses iMessage, it doesn't mean that they can't use any other messaging app. It cost nothing to use one of the other more popular texting apps. iOS users are not forced to use iMessage. iOS is not a monopoly. iMessage is not a monopoly on iOS. iOS users do not have to buy an Android device or carry devices for two platforms, in order to text Android users. So tell us how exactly is iMessage a lock in that should be a concern for Apple under anti-trust? Just because they might have used the term "lock in" in an internal meeting? Even if they did, iMessage is no more a "lock in" than 1000's of other "lock ins" that are being used by other companies. And don't tell use that ..... that's for the investigators to determine. Different countries might see it differently and Apple is being looked at under a microscope. The is a cop-out reply.
I have maybe half a dozen Dewalt 18v cordless tools and nearly a dozen 18v batteries for them. If I need a cordless angle grinder, I will only be looking at a Dewalt. Why? Because the nearly dozen Dewalt batteries I have do not fit a Milwaukee or Makita or Bosch or any other makers cordless tool for that matter. (BTW- Dewalt batteries do fit some Black and Decker cordless tools because Dewalt is owned by Black and Decker.) Batteries for cordless tools are not cheap. At least not the good ones. They are a "lock in". It would be much more expensive and inconvenient for me to buy another brand angle grinder, plus several batteries and the charger, than it would for me to just buy the more expensive Dewalt angle grinder without batteries and charger. I don't want to be carrying two different type of batteries and chargers with me, when I'm helping a friend do some remodeling. Does that mean that Dewalt should be investigated under anti-trust for their cordless tool batteries being a "lock in", because they only work on Dewalt cordless tools?
Please re-read the article and comments.
No-one knows if the lock-in exists. That would have to be determined by the courts and consumer protection bodies.
There is a claim that Apple acted on the idea of locking customers in.
That makes all references on lock-in hypothetical and should be interpreted that way.
IMO, your the Costco example (and all the others) were poor analogies for the reasons I gave.
We are pre-supposing that the lock-in did in fact exist (in Apple's mindset at least) and was effective.
Now it has to be demonstrated for it to have any value.
NO, there is no question that iMessage serves as a "lock in". None what-so-ever. There is nothing hypothetical about it. iMessage is just one of many iOS features that Apple uses to keep iOS users from wanting to switch platforms or attract Android users to iOS. iOS only features like Apple Map, Safari, Apple Pay and FaceTime are other features that can be considered "lock ins". But none of these Apple iOS only features are a matter of concern for anti-trust because Apple do not have a monopoly on any of them, Apple users are not forced to use any of them, there are other apps in iOS that does the same thing and there are are similar features on Android that does the same thing. Even though some of them might not be as good or easy to use as the ones by Apple on iOS.
Anti-trust lawyers don't need a blow hard like Sweeney to tell them that Apple uses iMessage and other iOS features as "lock ins". They already know this and they don't care because there is nothing illegal about "lock ins". Otherwise, by now, Apple would have been charged with anti-trust for having features and software that are only available on iOS or OS X, that serves to keep users on their platforms or attract users from the other platforms.
The question is why do YOU think iMessage should be looked as an anti-trust matter? Just because Sweeney said so? You seem to be of the opinion that it could be an anti-trust matter if it can be proven that Apple used iMessage as a "lock in" to keep iOS users on their platform. Why? The examples given here of where other companies uses "lock ins", are relevant. It's just you see them as poor analogies? Why? All "lock ins" serves the same purpose, no matter how it's done or who's doing it.
What difference does it make whether Apple use of iMessage as a "lock in", was effective or not? If it wasn't effective, then it wouldn't be considered a "lock in". There is no such thing as a non-effective "lock in". The term "non-effective lock in", is an oxymoron. And if it was effective, it wouldn't be a matter of anti-trust anyway. iPhones and iPads are not monopolies. iOS is not a monopoly. iMessage is not a monopoly. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Apple using iMessage as a way to keep iDevice users from wanting to switch to an Android device. What monopoly is Apple abusing?
There is a world of difference between having a "lock in" that serves to keeps your customers from wanting to switch and having a "lock in" that prevents your customers from switching. iMessage in no way prevents iOS users from switching to Android or prevent them from using one of many iOS apps that allows them to send text messages to Android users. (Without having to pay for or also carry an Android device.)
IMHO- An Apple Watch is way more an effective "lock in" than iMessage. In order to use all the features of an Apple Watch, you need an iPhone. Why would Apple even consider writing software so an Apple Watch can work on an Android phone? And even if it was found out that Apple did write the app needed for an Apple Watch to fully work on Android phones but decided to not released it, would that be an anti-trust matter? Or is it only an anti-trust matter if some one at Apple used the term "lock in", when deciding not to release it?
What I think isn't important. What I've said is that the analogies were poor and we'll have to see how things play out.
I also said that if it is proven that Apple did see iMessage as a lock-in mechanism, it wouldn't bode well.
I definitely wouldn't be as sure of things as you are. Times change.
I wouldn't like to go out on a limb because I think it could swing either way.
Things are ok until they're not ok. Many things are legal until they're not legal. Many 'accepted' practices from the past are now not accepted.
Remember situation involving preset default search engines in browsers? That was fine for years but then late last year the US government took issue with Google.
Here is just a snippet of what they had to say:
"For a general search engine, by far the most effective means of distribution is to be the preset default general search engine for mobile and computer search access points. Even where users can change the default, they rarely do. This leaves the preset default general search engine with de facto exclusivity. As Google itself has recognized, this is particularly true on mobile devices, where defaults are especially sticky.
If you swap out 'search engine' for 'IM App', how much of a difference is there between the two cases?
Can you at least see some parallels?
I can at least see why Epic might be throwing this into the soup.
Lol
if I run a search engine, MY COMPANY (not someone else) gathers customers by installing on the most devices on earth - even devices I do t make - especially if it’s an ad revenue thing, because then I AM THE ONE PROFITTING off of your platform.
search makes sense to do this.
An IM app?
Heck no.
Case in point: Apple Music is multiplatform. Why? Because Apple gains customers and revenue that way.
So this argument is DOA.
IM? That’s a platform service that differentiates iOS from the other crap that’s out there. Apple gains nothing from giving away that feature. If anything, it de-incentivized customers to return or new customers from signing up.
Totally different scenarios.
Common sense stuff.
If Apple did see iMessage as a lock in mechanism, PROFITING from the move was the reason but through hardware sales as the service was free.
Shocking! Here are some other Business 101 shocking facts - I just learned that CBS kept its content away from ABC to lock in viewers! And get this, At Costco, you buy a membership and only members can shop there. Totally locked in. AND insurance companies look at the costs and likely hood of event to decide on premiums, for instance what it costs you to get coverage for windshield repair, they decide that cost on the likelihood of it happening and the how much it costs to do the repair!
The list is long. I even heard that Netflix sells a membership and you can't watch what they make unless you 'buy in' to their entertainment eco-system!
And I went to buy a new Subaru. Guess what. The Ford dealership doesn't sell them ! Totally locked out of that market!
Idiots are astounded at how the world operates.
You have misinterpreted the role of lock in.
Apple didn't want to lock you into iMessage but into the iOS ecosystem itself. That would mean, in your analogies at least, that once inside Costco for example, you would find it very inconvenient to get out.
Another interpretation would be that once you have your Costco membership, you are also free to join other membership schemes at no added inconvenience to you.
Clearly that does not equate well to phone platforms as very few people can afford or would want to run two daily drivers on different platforms.
They are very different situations.
It is you that have misinterpreted the role of a lock in. The whole .... give away the razor and sell the blades ...... is based on a "lock in".
iMessage is not the only text messaging app available for iOS users. Just because an iOS user uses iMessage, it doesn't mean that they can't use any other messaging app. It cost nothing to use one of the other more popular texting apps. iOS users are not forced to use iMessage. iOS is not a monopoly. iMessage is not a monopoly on iOS. iOS users do not have to buy an Android device or carry devices for two platforms, in order to text Android users. So tell us how exactly is iMessage a lock in that should be a concern for Apple under anti-trust? Just because they might have used the term "lock in" in an internal meeting? Even if they did, iMessage is no more a "lock in" than 1000's of other "lock ins" that are being used by other companies. And don't tell use that ..... that's for the investigators to determine. Different countries might see it differently and Apple is being looked at under a microscope. The is a cop-out reply.
I have maybe half a dozen Dewalt 18v cordless tools and nearly a dozen 18v batteries for them. If I need a cordless angle grinder, I will only be looking at a Dewalt. Why? Because the nearly dozen Dewalt batteries I have do not fit a Milwaukee or Makita or Bosch or any other makers cordless tool for that matter. (BTW- Dewalt batteries do fit some Black and Decker cordless tools because Dewalt is owned by Black and Decker.) Batteries for cordless tools are not cheap. At least not the good ones. They are a "lock in". It would be much more expensive and inconvenient for me to buy another brand angle grinder, plus several batteries and the charger, than it would for me to just buy the more expensive Dewalt angle grinder without batteries and charger. I don't want to be carrying two different type of batteries and chargers with me, when I'm helping a friend do some remodeling. Does that mean that Dewalt should be investigated under anti-trust for their cordless tool batteries being a "lock in", because they only work on Dewalt cordless tools?
Please re-read the article and comments.
No-one knows if the lock-in exists. That would have to be determined by the courts and consumer protection bodies.
There is a claim that Apple acted on the idea of locking customers in.
That makes all references on lock-in hypothetical and should be interpreted that way.
IMO, your the Costco example (and all the others) were poor analogies for the reasons I gave.
We are pre-supposing that the lock-in did in fact exist (in Apple's mindset at least) and was effective.
Now it has to be demonstrated for it to have any value.
NO, there is no question that iMessage serves as a "lock in". None what-so-ever. There is nothing hypothetical about it. iMessage is just one of many iOS features that Apple uses to keep iOS users from wanting to switch platforms or attract Android users to iOS. iOS only features like Apple Map, Safari, Apple Pay and FaceTime are other features that can be considered "lock ins". But none of these Apple iOS only features are a matter of concern for anti-trust because Apple do not have a monopoly on any of them, Apple users are not forced to use any of them, there are other apps in iOS that does the same thing and there are are similar features on Android that does the same thing. Even though some of them might not be as good or easy to use as the ones by Apple on iOS.
Anti-trust lawyers don't need a blow hard like Sweeney to tell them that Apple uses iMessage and other iOS features as "lock ins". They already know this and they don't care because there is nothing illegal about "lock ins". Otherwise, by now, Apple would have been charged with anti-trust for having features and software that are only available on iOS or OS X, that serves to keep users on their platforms or attract users from the other platforms.
The question is why do YOU think iMessage should be looked as an anti-trust matter? Just because Sweeney said so? You seem to be of the opinion that it could be an anti-trust matter if it can be proven that Apple used iMessage as a "lock in" to keep iOS users on their platform. Why? The examples given here of where other companies uses "lock ins", are relevant. It's just you see them as poor analogies? Why? All "lock ins" serves the same purpose, no matter how it's done or who's doing it.
What difference does it make whether Apple use of iMessage as a "lock in", was effective or not? If it wasn't effective, then it wouldn't be considered a "lock in". There is no such thing as a non-effective "lock in". The term "non-effective lock in", is an oxymoron. And if it was effective, it wouldn't be a matter of anti-trust anyway. iPhones and iPads are not monopolies. iOS is not a monopoly. iMessage is not a monopoly. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Apple using iMessage as a way to keep iDevice users from wanting to switch to an Android device. What monopoly is Apple abusing?
There is a world of difference between having a "lock in" that serves to keeps your customers from wanting to switch and having a "lock in" that prevents your customers from switching. iMessage in no way prevents iOS users from switching to Android or prevent them from using one of many iOS apps that allows them to send text messages to Android users. (Without having to pay for or also carry an Android device.)
IMHO- An Apple Watch is way more an effective "lock in" than iMessage. In order to use all the features of an Apple Watch, you need an iPhone. Why would Apple even consider writing software so an Apple Watch can work on an Android phone? And even if it was found out that Apple did write the app needed for an Apple Watch to fully work on Android phones but decided to not released it, would that be an anti-trust matter? Or is it only an anti-trust matter if some one at Apple used the term "lock in", when deciding not to release it?
What I think isn't important. What I've said is that the analogies were poor and we'll have to see how things play out.
I also said that if it is proven that Apple did see iMessage as a lock-in mechanism, it wouldn't bode well.
I definitely wouldn't be as sure of things as you are. Times change.
I wouldn't like to go out on a limb because I think it could swing either way.
Things are ok until they're not ok. Many things are legal until they're not legal. Many 'accepted' practices from the past are now not accepted.
Remember situation involving preset default search engines in browsers? That was fine for years but then late last year the US government took issue with Google.
Here is just a snippet of what they had to say:
"For a general search engine, by far the most effective means of distribution is to be the preset default general search engine for mobile and computer search access points. Even where users can change the default, they rarely do. This leaves the preset default general search engine with de facto exclusivity. As Google itself has recognized, this is particularly true on mobile devices, where defaults are especially sticky.
If you swap out 'search engine' for 'IM App', how much of a difference is there between the two cases?
Can you at least see some parallels?
I can at least see why Epic might be throwing this into the soup.
It's interesting that you of all people are making the case for iMessage lock in. My recollection is that you consider iMessage grossly inferior to 3rd party apps, and would never consider using it.
The only notable Apple advantage from iMessage is a preference limited to teens, specifically teenage girls, and even then, only in a few English speaking countries. It's a cultural phenomenon originally driven by iPhone exclusivity, and iMessage, plus FaceTime, are just popular embodiments of the broad iPhone ecosystem. You might as well complain about AirPods, Beats, Macs and iPads, or Apple Watch as creating lock ins.
Face it, Apple has, by far, the most compelling ecosystem, curated and secure, and those that are in it, are voting with their wallets, over and over again. That's also the reason that Epic wants a piece of Apple's action, but without Apple as a middleman.
Shocking! Here are some other Business 101 shocking facts - I just learned that CBS kept its content away from ABC to lock in viewers! And get this, At Costco, you buy a membership and only members can shop there. Totally locked in. AND insurance companies look at the costs and likely hood of event to decide on premiums, for instance what it costs you to get coverage for windshield repair, they decide that cost on the likelihood of it happening and the how much it costs to do the repair!
The list is long. I even heard that Netflix sells a membership and you can't watch what they make unless you 'buy in' to their entertainment eco-system!
And I went to buy a new Subaru. Guess what. The Ford dealership doesn't sell them ! Totally locked out of that market!
Idiots are astounded at how the world operates.
You have misinterpreted the role of lock in.
Apple didn't want to lock you into iMessage but into the iOS ecosystem itself. That would mean, in your analogies at least, that once inside Costco for example, you would find it very inconvenient to get out.
Another interpretation would be that once you have your Costco membership, you are also free to join other membership schemes at no added inconvenience to you.
Clearly that does not equate well to phone platforms as very few people can afford or would want to run two daily drivers on different platforms.
They are very different situations.
All businesses try to lock you in, in some way. It’s a normal thing. It’s only bad when you are a monopoly. I know a few iPhone users who switched to Android. I know more who switched to iPhone, and I know some that went from iPhone to Android and back to iPhone. Apple chooses to make software cross-platform when it suits them. Just because Apple management said that iMessage caused lock-in, doesn’t mean it’s illegal or bad. More people use WeChat or WhatsApp or SMS than iMessage, and both are available for iOS and Android. Sure, iMessage is more convenient for iPhone users, but they are not “locked-in” if they want to switch.
Shocking! Here are some other Business 101 shocking facts - I just learned that CBS kept its content away from ABC to lock in viewers! And get this, At Costco, you buy a membership and only members can shop there. Totally locked in. AND insurance companies look at the costs and likely hood of event to decide on premiums, for instance what it costs you to get coverage for windshield repair, they decide that cost on the likelihood of it happening and the how much it costs to do the repair!
The list is long. I even heard that Netflix sells a membership and you can't watch what they make unless you 'buy in' to their entertainment eco-system!
And I went to buy a new Subaru. Guess what. The Ford dealership doesn't sell them ! Totally locked out of that market!
Idiots are astounded at how the world operates.
You have misinterpreted the role of lock in.
Apple didn't want to lock you into iMessage but into the iOS ecosystem itself. That would mean, in your analogies at least, that once inside Costco for example, you would find it very inconvenient to get out.
Another interpretation would be that once you have your Costco membership, you are also free to join other membership schemes at no added inconvenience to you.
Clearly that does not equate well to phone platforms as very few people can afford or would want to run two daily drivers on different platforms.
They are very different situations.
It is you that have misinterpreted the role of a lock in. The whole .... give away the razor and sell the blades ...... is based on a "lock in".
iMessage is not the only text messaging app available for iOS users. Just because an iOS user uses iMessage, it doesn't mean that they can't use any other messaging app. It cost nothing to use one of the other more popular texting apps. iOS users are not forced to use iMessage. iOS is not a monopoly. iMessage is not a monopoly on iOS. iOS users do not have to buy an Android device or carry devices for two platforms, in order to text Android users. So tell us how exactly is iMessage a lock in that should be a concern for Apple under anti-trust? Just because they might have used the term "lock in" in an internal meeting? Even if they did, iMessage is no more a "lock in" than 1000's of other "lock ins" that are being used by other companies. And don't tell use that ..... that's for the investigators to determine. Different countries might see it differently and Apple is being looked at under a microscope. The is a cop-out reply.
I have maybe half a dozen Dewalt 18v cordless tools and nearly a dozen 18v batteries for them. If I need a cordless angle grinder, I will only be looking at a Dewalt. Why? Because the nearly dozen Dewalt batteries I have do not fit a Milwaukee or Makita or Bosch or any other makers cordless tool for that matter. (BTW- Dewalt batteries do fit some Black and Decker cordless tools because Dewalt is owned by Black and Decker.) Batteries for cordless tools are not cheap. At least not the good ones. They are a "lock in". It would be much more expensive and inconvenient for me to buy another brand angle grinder, plus several batteries and the charger, than it would for me to just buy the more expensive Dewalt angle grinder without batteries and charger. I don't want to be carrying two different type of batteries and chargers with me, when I'm helping a friend do some remodeling. Does that mean that Dewalt should be investigated under anti-trust for their cordless tool batteries being a "lock in", because they only work on Dewalt cordless tools?
Please re-read the article and comments.
No-one knows if the lock-in exists. That would have to be determined by the courts and consumer protection bodies.
There is a claim that Apple acted on the idea of locking customers in.
That makes all references on lock-in hypothetical and should be interpreted that way.
IMO, your the Costco example (and all the others) were poor analogies for the reasons I gave.
We are pre-supposing that the lock-in did in fact exist (in Apple's mindset at least) and was effective.
Now it has to be demonstrated for it to have any value.
NO, there is no question that iMessage serves as a "lock in". None what-so-ever. There is nothing hypothetical about it. iMessage is just one of many iOS features that Apple uses to keep iOS users from wanting to switch platforms or attract Android users to iOS. iOS only features like Apple Map, Safari, Apple Pay and FaceTime are other features that can be considered "lock ins". But none of these Apple iOS only features are a matter of concern for anti-trust because Apple do not have a monopoly on any of them, Apple users are not forced to use any of them, there are other apps in iOS that does the same thing and there are are similar features on Android that does the same thing. Even though some of them might not be as good or easy to use as the ones by Apple on iOS.
Anti-trust lawyers don't need a blow hard like Sweeney to tell them that Apple uses iMessage and other iOS features as "lock ins". They already know this and they don't care because there is nothing illegal about "lock ins". Otherwise, by now, Apple would have been charged with anti-trust for having features and software that are only available on iOS or OS X, that serves to keep users on their platforms or attract users from the other platforms.
The question is why do YOU think iMessage should be looked as an anti-trust matter? Just because Sweeney said so? You seem to be of the opinion that it could be an anti-trust matter if it can be proven that Apple used iMessage as a "lock in" to keep iOS users on their platform. Why? The examples given here of where other companies uses "lock ins", are relevant. It's just you see them as poor analogies? Why? All "lock ins" serves the same purpose, no matter how it's done or who's doing it.
What difference does it make whether Apple use of iMessage as a "lock in", was effective or not? If it wasn't effective, then it wouldn't be considered a "lock in". There is no such thing as a non-effective "lock in". The term "non-effective lock in", is an oxymoron. And if it was effective, it wouldn't be a matter of anti-trust anyway. iPhones and iPads are not monopolies. iOS is not a monopoly. iMessage is not a monopoly. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Apple using iMessage as a way to keep iDevice users from wanting to switch to an Android device. What monopoly is Apple abusing?
There is a world of difference between having a "lock in" that serves to keeps your customers from wanting to switch and having a "lock in" that prevents your customers from switching. iMessage in no way prevents iOS users from switching to Android or prevent them from using one of many iOS apps that allows them to send text messages to Android users. (Without having to pay for or also carry an Android device.)
IMHO- An Apple Watch is way more an effective "lock in" than iMessage. In order to use all the features of an Apple Watch, you need an iPhone. Why would Apple even consider writing software so an Apple Watch can work on an Android phone? And even if it was found out that Apple did write the app needed for an Apple Watch to fully work on Android phones but decided to not released it, would that be an anti-trust matter? Or is it only an anti-trust matter if some one at Apple used the term "lock in", when deciding not to release it?
What I think isn't important. What I've said is that the analogies were poor and we'll have to see how things play out.
I also said that if it is proven that Apple did see iMessage as a lock-in mechanism, it wouldn't bode well.
I definitely wouldn't be as sure of things as you are. Times change.
I wouldn't like to go out on a limb because I think it could swing either way.
Things are ok until they're not ok. Many things are legal until they're not legal. Many 'accepted' practices from the past are now not accepted.
Remember situation involving preset default search engines in browsers? That was fine for years but then late last year the US government took issue with Google.
Here is just a snippet of what they had to say:
"For a general search engine, by far the most effective means of distribution is to be the preset default general search engine for mobile and computer search access points. Even where users can change the default, they rarely do. This leaves the preset default general search engine with de facto exclusivity. As Google itself has recognized, this is particularly true on mobile devices, where defaults are especially sticky.
If you swap out 'search engine' for 'IM App', how much of a difference is there between the two cases?
Can you at least see some parallels?
I can at least see why Epic might be throwing this into the soup.
It's interesting that you of all people are making the case for iMessage lock in. My recollection is that you consider iMessage grossly inferior to 3rd party apps, and would never consider using it.
The only notable Apple advantage from iMessage is a preference limited to teens, specifically teenage girls, and even then, only in a few English speaking countries. It's a cultural phenomenon originally driven by iPhone exclusivity, and iMessage, plus FaceTime, are just popular embodiments of the broad iPhone ecosystem. You might as well complain about AirPods, Beats, Macs and iPads, or Apple Watch as creating lock ins.
Face it, Apple has, by far, the most compelling ecosystem, curated and secure, and those that are in it, are voting with their wallets, over and over again. That's also the reason that Epic wants a piece of Apple's action, but without Apple as a middleman.
You haven't read the thread.
If you had, you would have seen that I'm not making a case 'for' or 'against' anything.
I'm simply commenting on what Epic and the article are highlighting.
That Epic (not me) claims that Apple (not me) saw iMessage as a lock in mechanism.
That said, the 'only notable Apple advantage from iMessage is a preference limited to teens' is incorrect.
Correct me if I'm wrong (I may be here) but wasn't any sms message from anyone (non smartphone, Android or iOS automatically pumped into iMessage, and iMessage was the preset default app for messages?
That situation puts it right next to the Google Search engine case in terms of potential problems.
Like I said, I don't know how things will play out so it's a case of wait and see.
And iOS is not 'by far' the most compelling ecosystem. And not by a long shot.
The majority of hardware features that make it onto Android first are simply ideas Apple patented years ago but either haven’t perfected yet, or because they need them in such vast quantities that it’s easier for Android device makers to rush to market when by comparison they sell very few handsets! Beyond that they bring pointless fad features that Apple purposefully leaked as a distraction. Don’t get me wrong it’s not always the case and sometimes Apple may introduce features that genuinely debuted on other handsets, but 90% of the time that is exactly what happens.
100% wrong and utterly delusional. Most Android innovations are developed either by Google's software division or Samsung's component division. Other than the Ax/Mx chips Apple doesn't do basic components. Never has. That sort of basic physics/chemistry/solid state electronics stuff has never been their cup of tea. Samsung meanwhile is currently the best in the world at it. And no, Apple has never done software innovation either. They are a hardware company, plus OS because that is hardware implemented as software. Apple's software deficiencies are what cost them the market share against Microsoft and Wintel, and it is what cost them the market share against Google and Android. If you believe otherwise, then you are no different from those sports fans who are convinced that A. their team is going to win the championship every year and B. that it is going to happen because their players and coaches aren't just better athletes than the competition but better people with better fans, traditions, institutions etc. In other words, total nonsense.
I’m delusional? Your comment proves that you’re actually projecting your own delusions onto me. As a single example of your ignorance, do you have any knowledge at all on the history of macOS and windows development? Clearly not, because if you did you would know that windows would not even exist if it hadn’t of been for Microsoft engaging in corporate espionage. They were developing apps for the soon to be released Macintosh at the time. Perhaps go and do some further research and educate yourself before making such easily disproven and embarrassing remarks.
The majority of hardware features that make it onto Android first are simply ideas Apple patented years ago but either haven’t perfected yet, or because they need them in such vast quantities that it’s easier for Android device makers to rush to market when by comparison they sell very few handsets! Beyond that they bring pointless fad features that Apple purposefully leaked as a distraction. Don’t get me wrong it’s not always the case and sometimes Apple may introduce features that genuinely debuted on other handsets, but 90% of the time that is exactly what happens.
100% wrong and utterly delusional. Most Android innovations are developed either by Google's software division or Samsung's component division. Other than the Ax/Mx chips Apple doesn't do basic components. Never has. That sort of basic physics/chemistry/solid state electronics stuff has never been their cup of tea. Samsung meanwhile is currently the best in the world at it. And no, Apple has never done software innovation either. They are a hardware company, plus OS because that is hardware implemented as software. Apple's software deficiencies are what cost them the market share against Microsoft and Wintel, and it is what cost them the market share against Google and Android. If you believe otherwise, then you are no different from those sports fans who are convinced that A. their team is going to win the championship every year and B. that it is going to happen because their players and coaches aren't just better athletes than the competition but better people with better fans, traditions, institutions etc. In@Gaby r words, total nonsense.
I’m delusional? Your comment proves that you’re actually projecting your own delusions onto me. As a single example of your ignorance, do you have any knowledge at all on the history of macOS and windows development? Clearly not, because if you did you would know that windows would not even exist if it hadn’t of been for Microsoft engaging in corporate espionage. They were developing apps for the soon to be released Macintosh at the time. Perhaps go and do some further research and educate yourself before making such easily disproven and embarrassing remarks.
@Gaby is absolutely correct and their supporting arguments are correct. @Gaby isn't talking component manufacturing. Parts are just a bunch of parts. It's Apple that imagines how to assemble the parts into a functioning idea and takes their time to release a working version not beta-hardware to test on unsuspecting customers.
Apple leak...folding phone...Samsung 1/2 baked attempt. Apple leak...under glass touch id...Samsung rush to market Could do this forever.
As for MS Windows. MS had "market share" not b/c they had a better product but 1. Media FUD and 2. Corporate usage where employees would copy (steal) the software to use on their home PCs. They were not going to spend hundreds of dollars to run Lotus on their Mac when the could "borrow" a copy from work. I mean after all it was for work, right...yeah, right 100%. Additionally, people were scared by media FUD about Office cross compatibility. I have been transferring documents between PC and Mac since 1983. The "cross compatibility" gaps were primarily advanced features that most users never use and still do not use and therefore never was an issue except in the news. The first PC, IBM PC, was a cheap piece of plastic joke.
Lastly, "market share" is todays media FUD. It has been shown by consumer spending that saturating the market with a product or an array of cheap to expensive products does not equate to company success. Financials show the truth and Apple is killing it. Which is why everyone is calling Apple a monopoly... b/c competitors need an edge to challenge Apple. They will only gain that edge if like Apple they learn to say no, some ideas and focus efforts on a few good ideas.
Comments
No-one knows if the lock-in exists. That would have to be determined by the courts and consumer protection bodies.
There is a claim that Apple acted on the idea of locking customers in.
That makes all references on lock-in hypothetical and should be interpreted that way.
IMO, your the Costco example (and all the others) were poor analogies for the reasons I gave.
We are pre-supposing that the lock-in did in fact exist (in Apple's mindset at least) and was effective.
Now it has to be demonstrated for it to have any value.
https://www.motortrend.com/cars/cadillac/escalade/2021/cadillac-super-cruise-is-as-good-or-better-than-tesla-autopilot/
"All the above considered, Cadillac's Super Cruise may not yet be able to match all the functions of Tesla's Autopilot, Autosteer, and Navigate on Autopilot, but in areas the two systems overlap (which is most of them), Super Cruise performs at least as well as the Autopilot suite and in some cases performs better. All the while, it does so more safely by tracking the human driver's attention and preparing them as much as possible as early as possible to take back control of the vehicle. Tesla moved fast, broke things, and radically advanced the state of the art, but Cadillac's more considered approach is the appropriate one for the vast majority of drivers, and Super Cruise should be made available on as many Cadillac and other GM models as quickly as possible if systems like these are to make any measurable impact on road safety as Tesla has so often claimed Autopilot does."
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/28/gms-super-cruise-tops-teslas-autopilot-in-consumer-reports-testing.html
Funny how Tesla fans are so misinformed, and also, so gullible that they lay down $10k for a beta of it.
The major advantage that GM has, is LIDAR, which Elon has been steadfast in stating is unnecessary; Elon is wrong.
WhatsApp (2009 February)
Facebook Messenger (2011 August 9)
Kik Messenger (2010 October 19)
Signal (2014 July 29 )
Telegram Messenger (Telegram X on Android) ( 2013 August 14)
WeChat (2011 January 21)
Viber Messenger (2010 December 2)
Skype (2003 August 29, came to iOS 2017 February 16)
LINE (can't find a date)
KakaoTalk (2010 March 18)
Of these only iMessage is not on andoird. So the idea where was some form of lock-in is on par with Trump's election being stolen from him.
Apple is going to rip Epic a new one if Epic is stupid enough to try to claim iMessage was a lock in.
It is claiming that Apple considered it a lock in tool.
From your list, many came after iMessage and none were preinstalled with iOS/Mac OS. Can Skype really be considered an IM app? It's been so long since I used it that I can't remember now.
In terms of timelines, remember that iMessage replaced iChat (from almost a decade earlier) in the Apple ecosystem. That gave it a lot of traction.
Anti-trust lawyers don't need a blow hard like Sweeney to tell them that Apple uses iMessage and other iOS features as "lock ins". They already know this and they don't care because there is nothing illegal about "lock ins". Otherwise, by now, Apple would have been charged with anti-trust for having features and software that are only available on iOS or OS X, that serves to keep users on their platforms or attract users from the other platforms.
The question is why do YOU think iMessage should be looked as an anti-trust matter? Just because Sweeney said so? You seem to be of the opinion that it could be an anti-trust matter if it can be proven that Apple used iMessage as a "lock in" to keep iOS users on their platform. Why? The examples given here of where other companies uses "lock ins", are relevant. It's just you see them as poor analogies? Why? All "lock ins" serves the same purpose, no matter how it's done or who's doing it.
What difference does it make whether Apple use of iMessage as a "lock in", was effective or not? If it wasn't effective, then it wouldn't be considered a "lock in". There is no such thing as a non-effective "lock in". The term "non-effective lock in", is an oxymoron. And if it was effective, it wouldn't be a matter of anti-trust anyway. iPhones and iPads are not monopolies. iOS is not a monopoly. iMessage is not a monopoly. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Apple using iMessage as a way to keep iDevice users from wanting to switch to an Android device. What monopoly is Apple abusing?
There is a world of difference between having a "lock in" that serves to keeps your customers from wanting to switch and having a "lock in" that prevents your customers from switching. iMessage in no way prevents iOS users from switching to Android or prevent them from using one of many iOS apps that allows them to send text messages to Android users. (Without having to pay for or also carry an Android device.)
IMHO- An Apple Watch is way more an effective "lock in" than iMessage. In order to use all the features of an Apple Watch, you need an iPhone. Why would Apple even consider writing software so an Apple Watch can work on an Android phone? And even if it was found out that Apple did write the app needed for an Apple Watch to fully work on Android phones but decided to not released it, would that be an anti-trust matter? Or is it only an anti-trust matter if some one at Apple used the term "lock in", when deciding not to release it?
I also said that if it is proven that Apple did see iMessage as a lock-in mechanism, it wouldn't bode well.
I definitely wouldn't be as sure of things as you are. Times change.
I wouldn't like to go out on a limb because I think it could swing either way.
Things are ok until they're not ok. Many things are legal until they're not legal. Many 'accepted' practices from the past are now not accepted.
Remember situation involving preset default search engines in browsers? That was fine for years but then late last year the US government took issue with Google.
Here is just a snippet of what they had to say:
If you swap out 'search engine' for 'IM App', how much of a difference is there between the two cases?
Can you at least see some parallels?
I can at least see why Epic might be throwing this into the soup.
Apple choosing to not give other platforms access to its greatest features is not locking people in. It’s creating great products and services. For its customers.
if I run a search engine, MY COMPANY (not someone else) gathers customers by installing on the most devices on earth - even devices I do t make - especially if it’s an ad revenue thing, because then I AM THE ONE PROFITTING off of your platform.
search makes sense to do this.
The only notable Apple advantage from iMessage is a preference limited to teens, specifically teenage girls, and even then, only in a few English speaking countries. It's a cultural phenomenon originally driven by iPhone exclusivity, and iMessage, plus FaceTime, are just popular embodiments of the broad iPhone ecosystem. You might as well complain about AirPods, Beats, Macs and iPads, or Apple Watch as creating lock ins.
Face it, Apple has, by far, the most compelling ecosystem, curated and secure, and those that are in it, are voting with their wallets, over and over again. That's also the reason that Epic wants a piece of Apple's action, but without Apple as a middleman.
If you had, you would have seen that I'm not making a case 'for' or 'against' anything.
I'm simply commenting on what Epic and the article are highlighting.
That Epic (not me) claims that Apple (not me) saw iMessage as a lock in mechanism.
That said, the 'only notable Apple advantage from iMessage is a preference limited to teens' is incorrect.
Correct me if I'm wrong (I may be here) but wasn't any sms message from anyone (non smartphone, Android or iOS automatically pumped into iMessage, and iMessage was the preset default app for messages?
That situation puts it right next to the Google Search engine case in terms of potential problems.
Like I said, I don't know how things will play out so it's a case of wait and see.
And iOS is not 'by far' the most compelling ecosystem. And not by a long shot.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/04/verizon-att-and-t-mobile-kill-their-cross-carrier-rcs-messaging-plans/
Apple leak...folding phone...Samsung 1/2 baked attempt.
Apple leak...under glass touch id...Samsung rush to market
Could do this forever.
As for MS Windows. MS had "market share" not b/c they had a better product but 1. Media FUD and 2. Corporate usage where employees would copy (steal) the software to use on their home PCs. They were not going to spend hundreds of dollars to run Lotus on their Mac when the could "borrow" a copy from work. I mean after all it was for work, right...yeah, right 100%. Additionally, people were scared by media FUD about Office cross compatibility. I have been transferring documents between PC and Mac since 1983. The "cross compatibility" gaps were primarily advanced features that most users never use and still do not use and therefore never was an issue except in the news. The first PC, IBM PC, was a cheap piece of plastic joke.
Lastly, "market share" is todays media FUD. It has been shown by consumer spending that saturating the market with a product or an array of cheap to expensive products does not equate to company success. Financials show the truth and Apple is killing it. Which is why everyone is calling Apple a monopoly... b/c competitors need an edge to challenge Apple. They will only gain that edge if like Apple they learn to say no, some ideas and focus efforts on a few good ideas.