Apple's Eddy Cue wanted to bring iMessage to Android as early as 2013

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 47
    Beats said:
    So Apple is obligated to give their software away now?
    Someone mentioned car engines. Great analogy. Apple isn’t obligated to support iKnockoffs any more than McDonalds is obligated to offer their hamburgers(for free)  at Burger King. These arguments have no logic.

    And my goodness these are the absolute worse replies in AI history.

    I don’t know where to begin.

    I agree with Eddy Cur on this one. The view that Apple VPs didn’t think Apple devices could stand on their own against Android if Apple made cross-platform communication better is pretty paranoid. At least Apple seems to be moving away from this point of view with their services push taking a higher priority. If anything messages could have been a gateway in to a subscription Facebook alternative which is something everyone wants.


    Android is a knockoff Apple platform with knockoff hardware to compliment it. Exclusive software and features like privacy are the only way Apple can differentiate now.

    I always thought Apple could sell a subscription for knockoff iPhones/knockoff iPads at $.99/month for both FaceTime and iMessage. This would pay development, patent trolls, lawsuits(androids crappy security) etc.

    DangDave said:
    Thankfully Apple did not pursue an Android version of iMessage as Apple would then have had to host the chat services and maintain the software compatibility for hundreds of Android versions for multiple cell phone providers and carriers as they came and went. Although it did not incorporate interoperability between carriers or other providers, iMessage was based on the early specifications of RCS (aka chat) that began in 2007 and were adopted by the GSM in 2008. RCS continues to be a mixed bag of success and failures around the world. Last month Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile abandoned their cooperative interoperable RCS effort when they realized that Google has stepped up to host or dominate RCS for the Android crowd. 
    Apple's iMessage app would not have had to maintain software compatibility with hundreds of Android versions.  No app in the Play Store has to do that.  Where'd you even get an idea like that?  The iMessage app would have been hosted on the Play Store.  Any handset manufacturer that uses the Play Store would have had compatibility regardless of their skin of Android.  iMessage would have been an app just like any other.  

    COMPLETE BULL**IT.

    One of the biggest complaints about android is having to develop for thousands of knockoff iPhones.

    Can someone post the Vine where a developer shows off knockoff iPads/knockoff iPhones all reacting differently to a compass on a flat table?? That was FRUSTRATING!!


    I’m gonna stop here because most of the replies don’t make sense. Like the theory that Apple giving away their apps for free would
    magically make people buy iPhones. No, iTunes on Windows doesn’t count because it didn’t run on knockoff iPods from Microsoft. Even when Zune came out years later it was somewhat original and not a knockoff. Copying? Yes but not a ripoff like android is.
    Breathe dude.  It's a forum discussion, not combat.  That ↑↑↑ is sorta unhinged.
    1. No one is saying Apple is obligated to give away software.  You made that up.  The article discussed Cue's desire to have iMessage on Android.  When you say these arguments have not logic, you're 100% right.  The analogies you're referencing have no logic.
    2.  Your knowledge of Android and Android development is severely outdated.  The equally outdated Vine reference reinforces that opinion. 
    croprelijahgmuthuk_vanalingamBeats
  • Reply 22 of 47
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,492moderator
    avon b7 said:
    I think that Epic simply wanted to prove that the concept of user lock in was actively considered and implemented at Apple.

    The communications around the iMessage issue do seem to show that Apple saw it as a way to prevent users moving to Android devices and acted on it to that end.

    Epic may have won this point. 
    Acura gave me an Acura loaner car every time I took my Acura in for service.   That was meaningful in my decision to buy another Acura when the time came.  I wasn’t prevented from switching to another brand when I needed a new car, but I knew if I switched to a Nissan, for example (a cheaper brand) I’d lose that perk.  I fail to see how it’s any different, or should be any different, with makers of smartphones.  Brand A provides an upscale messaging platform for its users, which they will lose (opt out of) by switching to brand B.  That’s life.  

    Note: Sunnyside Acura in Nashua, NH also resells the better samples of cars traded in at that dealership.  The lesser trade-ins get wholesaled or sold by an affiliated used car dealer just up the road a few hundred yards (meters).  And they offer service on those trade-ins that they resell.  But they don’t offer Acura loaners when you bring in one of those non-Acura cars you bought from them.  The Acura loaners are only for customer who drive Acuras.  I’m sure that they had a discussion about this when they set up that program, just as Apple had discussion of offering iMessage on Android.  So what?  To discuss and decide is a normal part of running business.  As is the practice of making decisions that help to incentivize customers to remain loyal and return for future purchase.  I think this process being erroneously, and maliciously, recast in negative terminology - “lock-in,” “walled garden,” etc - is the real problem.  It’s innovation.  It’s just innovation not offered to your competitors.  
    edited April 2021 Fidonet127thtelijahgqwerty52Beatsjony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 47
    croprcropr Posts: 1,075member
    Eddy was right.  In countries with a relatively low iOS market share, iMessage is not the default messaging app, especially not for group chat. My chess club (60 members) created a Whatsapp group, because everyone in the club has access to the full functionality of Whatsapp, while only 8 members have an iPhone and access to the full iMessage functionality. The same applies to Facetime.  The last time I used Facetime was 6 years ago, when I tried it out with my daughter who bought her first iPhone.  I stopped using it because the chances are too big that the person I want to chat with does not have Facetime.

    By definition communications apps (voice video, text) require open standards.  If 20% of the population has an iPhone, only 4% of the communication happen between 2 iPhones.
    elijahgmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 24 of 47
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,261member
    I do wish they'd bring iMessage to Windows though. I use a PC at home for gaming and its annoying sometimes that I can't use Windows for iMessage. I seriously doubt iMessage for Windows would make someone thinking about switching to Mac to not do it. 
    elijahgwatto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 47
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,587member
    Still, so what? I’m sure if went through enough of Apple’s emails, you would see that part of the reason for everything in the Apple ecosystem working so well together is to lock users in and convenience. Epic would do the same thing. 
    Convenience and good experience should be the reason Apple's ecosystem is sticky, making people want to use the Apple ecosystem rather than being forced to use it through engineered lock-in. Lock-in is not a requirement for a good experience, and is no doubt something antitrust regulators will look at.
  • Reply 26 of 47
    9secondkox29secondkox2 Posts: 1,171member
    Non-news. 

    Anyone in leadership anywhere is going to have an idea to share. 

    This was Eddie’s at the time. 

    But iMessage is a core differentiator, so the board thought better of it and did the right thing. 

    It’s not required of companies to give their best inventions to competitors. 

    I mean come on people. Common sense. 
    thtBeatsjony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 47
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,492moderator
    elijahg said:
    Still, so what? I’m sure if went through enough of Apple’s emails, you would see that part of the reason for everything in the Apple ecosystem working so well together is to lock users in and convenience. Epic would do the same thing. 
    Convenience and good experience should be the reason Apple's ecosystem is sticky, making people want to use the Apple ecosystem rather than being forced to use it through engineered lock-in. Lock-in is not a requirement for a good experience, and is no doubt something antitrust regulators will look at.
    I think maybe some are confusing one thing for another.  There is no lock-in, per se.  Nobody is locked in, as that would imply they simply could not get out.  And of course they can.  When it comes time to buy a new smartphone any iPhone owner could buy an Android phone.  Doing so does NOT mean they are breaking free of something they were previously locked into.  Rather, it means that they are voluntarily opting out of the unique benefits of one ecosystem and opting in to the benefits associated with another ecosystem.  

    If the benefits unique to the iOS ecosystem are sufficiently attractive, a person may chose not to opt out.  That doesn’t mean they are locked in.  Anymore than a person is locked into a great romantic relationship.  They can opt out at any time but might not want to because that would entail giving up the benefits.  

    Marriage is more akin to lock in, as it involves a contractual commitment, that, if broken, entails potentially expensive settlement.  As far as I’m aware, as an Apple customer, I signed no contract compelling me to stay in the Apple ecosystem.  I am, therefore, in no manner locked in.  I opted in and I’m free to opt out, with the knowledge that doing so means I give up the benefits.  

    edited April 2021 thtjony0watto_cobraDetnator
  • Reply 28 of 47
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,600member
    Eddy Cue is Apple software? He seems so real. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 47
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,587member
    elijahg said:
    Still, so what? I’m sure if went through enough of Apple’s emails, you would see that part of the reason for everything in the Apple ecosystem working so well together is to lock users in and convenience. Epic would do the same thing. 
    Convenience and good experience should be the reason Apple's ecosystem is sticky, making people want to use the Apple ecosystem rather than being forced to use it through engineered lock-in. Lock-in is not a requirement for a good experience, and is no doubt something antitrust regulators will look at.
    I think maybe some are confusing one thing for another.  There is no lock-in, per se.  Nobody is locked in, as that would imply they simply could not get out.  And of course they can.  When it comes time to buy a new smartphone any iPhone owner could buy an Android phone.  Doing so does NOT mean they are breaking free of something they were previously locked into.  Rather, it means that they are voluntarily opting out of the unique benefits of one ecosystem and opting in to the benefits associated with another ecosystem.  

    If the benefits unique to the iOS ecosystem are sufficiently attractive, a person may chose not to opt out.  That doesn’t mean they are locked in.  Anymore than a person is locked into a great romantic relationship.  They can opt out at any time but might not want to because that would entail giving up the benefits.  

    Marriage is more akin to lock in, as it involves a contractual commitment, that, if broken, entails potentially expensive settlement.  As far as I’m aware, as an Apple customer, I signed no contract compelling me to stay in the Apple ecosystem.  I am, therefore, in no manner locked in.  I opted in and I’m free to opt out, with the knowledge that doing so means I give up the benefits.  

    The lock-in comes from things like the HomePod only working with Apple devices, and the amount people have spent in the App Store. Leaving the iPhone would also entail potentially expensive losses. The spend on iOS apps would be a write off and you'd have to re-buy them on Android. Same of course in the other direction. Steam is an example of an App Store that works cross platform - buy once run anywhere. Apple is not allowing that form of competition. You can of course exit whenever you like, but doing so is not a zero cost (or even negligible cost) endeavour. That's the lock-in.
    edited April 2021
  • Reply 30 of 47
    elijahg said:
    Still, so what? I’m sure if went through enough of Apple’s emails, you would see that part of the reason for everything in the Apple ecosystem working so well together is to lock users in and convenience. Epic would do the same thing. 
    Convenience and good experience should be the reason Apple's ecosystem is sticky, making people want to use the Apple ecosystem rather than being forced to use it through engineered lock-in. Lock-in is not a requirement for a good experience, and is no doubt something antitrust regulators will look at.
    I think maybe some are confusing one thing for another.  There is no lock-in, per se.  Nobody is locked in, as that would imply they simply could not get out.  And of course they can.  When it comes time to buy a new smartphone any iPhone owner could buy an Android phone.  Doing so does NOT mean they are breaking free of something they were previously locked into.  Rather, it means that they are voluntarily opting out of the unique benefits of one ecosystem and opting in to the benefits associated with another ecosystem.  

    If the benefits unique to the iOS ecosystem are sufficiently attractive, a person may chose not to opt out.  That doesn’t mean they are locked in.  Anymore than a person is locked into a great romantic relationship.  They can opt out at any time but might not want to because that would entail giving up the benefits.  

    Marriage is more akin to lock in, as it involves a contractual commitment, that, if broken, entails potentially expensive settlement.  As far as I’m aware, as an Apple customer, I signed no contract compelling me to stay in the Apple ecosystem.  I am, therefore, in no manner locked in.  I opted in and I’m free to opt out, with the knowledge that doing so means I give up the benefits.  

    That's not what locked-in means in this context.  There's a term for what's being discussed here.  It's called Vendor Lock-In or Customer Lock-In.  The goal with Vendor Lock-In is to have the customer dependent on the vendor for goods and services, making switching an onerous task either from loss of desired and exclusive features or substantial cost to replace or a combination of both.

    Leave HBO? Sure. But no more GoT, Sopranos, Wire, or any of their other exclusives.  Same as theater movies at no additional cost?  Yeah, that stays with us.
    Leave Nike? By all means.  Good luck with the Reebok Jordan's or those fresh new Adidias LeBron's
    Leave Apple? Oh, okay. Well we're sorry to see you go.  Facetime and iMessage are really going to miss you.

    Pretty much every company worth it's salt tries to gain some type of vendor lock-in.
  • Reply 31 of 47
    I agree with the rest of the executive team: iMessage on Apple devices is a competitive advantage - as a stockholder I have to ask, "Why put it on Android?"

    Just because you have a better idea and implementation doesn't mean you have to give it away to the competition.

    I don't see Google giving away their secret sauce for getting better results out of inferior camera hardware or code for their search engine - why should Apple give away their trade secrets?

    Epic has moved beyond trying to prove their case - they just want to hurt Apple.

    I'd like to see a discount store app try to weasel their way into the Epic Game Store - selling discount apps undercutting Epic by taking a smaller cut. Be interesting to see what Epic does.
    Beatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 47
    BeatsBeats Posts: 2,910member
    Beats said:
    So Apple is obligated to give their software away now?
    Someone mentioned car engines. Great analogy. Apple isn’t obligated to support iKnockoffs any more than McDonalds is obligated to offer their hamburgers(for free)  at Burger King. These arguments have no logic.

    And my goodness these are the absolute worse replies in AI history.

    I don’t know where to begin.

    I agree with Eddy Cur on this one. The view that Apple VPs didn’t think Apple devices could stand on their own against Android if Apple made cross-platform communication better is pretty paranoid. At least Apple seems to be moving away from this point of view with their services push taking a higher priority. If anything messages could have been a gateway in to a subscription Facebook alternative which is something everyone wants.


    Android is a knockoff Apple platform with knockoff hardware to compliment it. Exclusive software and features like privacy are the only way Apple can differentiate now.

    I always thought Apple could sell a subscription for knockoff iPhones/knockoff iPads at $.99/month for both FaceTime and iMessage. This would pay development, patent trolls, lawsuits(androids crappy security) etc.

    DangDave said:
    Thankfully Apple did not pursue an Android version of iMessage as Apple would then have had to host the chat services and maintain the software compatibility for hundreds of Android versions for multiple cell phone providers and carriers as they came and went. Although it did not incorporate interoperability between carriers or other providers, iMessage was based on the early specifications of RCS (aka chat) that began in 2007 and were adopted by the GSM in 2008. RCS continues to be a mixed bag of success and failures around the world. Last month Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile abandoned their cooperative interoperable RCS effort when they realized that Google has stepped up to host or dominate RCS for the Android crowd. 
    Apple's iMessage app would not have had to maintain software compatibility with hundreds of Android versions.  No app in the Play Store has to do that.  Where'd you even get an idea like that?  The iMessage app would have been hosted on the Play Store.  Any handset manufacturer that uses the Play Store would have had compatibility regardless of their skin of Android.  iMessage would have been an app just like any other.  

    COMPLETE BULL**IT.

    One of the biggest complaints about android is having to develop for thousands of knockoff iPhones.

    Can someone post the Vine where a developer shows off knockoff iPads/knockoff iPhones all reacting differently to a compass on a flat table?? That was FRUSTRATING!!


    I’m gonna stop here because most of the replies don’t make sense. Like the theory that Apple giving away their apps for free would
    magically make people buy iPhones. No, iTunes on Windows doesn’t count because it didn’t run on knockoff iPods from Microsoft. Even when Zune came out years later it was somewhat original and not a knockoff. Copying? Yes but not a ripoff like android is.
    Breathe dude.  It's a forum discussion, not combat.  That ↑↑↑ is sorta unhinged.
    1. No one is saying Apple is obligated to give away software.  You made that up.  The article discussed Cue's desire to have iMessage on Android.  When you say these arguments have not logic, you're 100% right.  The analogies you're referencing have no logic.
    2.  Your knowledge of Android and Android development is severely outdated.  The equally outdated Vine reference reinforces that opinion. 

    1. Explain why this is even in the Epic case?

    That’s right. Because people expect Apple to develop for everyone.
    news flash: they’re not obligated to. 

    2. Android is still open source. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 47
    BeatsBeats Posts: 2,910member
    I agree with the rest of the executive team: iMessage on Apple devices is a competitive advantage - as a stockholder I have to ask, "Why put it on Android?"

    Just because you have a better idea and implementation doesn't mean you have to give it away to the competition.

    I don't see Google giving away their secret sauce for getting better results out of inferior camera hardware or code for their search engine - why should Apple give away their trade secrets?

    Epic has moved beyond trying to prove their case - they just want to hurt Apple.

    I'd like to see a discount store app try to weasel their way into the Epic Game Store - selling discount apps undercutting Epic by taking a smaller cut. Be interesting to see what Epic does.

    Glad to see some common sense and logic on page 2 of this comment thread.

    SPOT ON. Apple is not obligated to share their development work to anyone. It’s enough they shared their iPhone hardware and software design. Is that not enough?

    P.S. I also wondered what Epic would think if 3rd party app stores and 3rd party apps with ZERO monetary contribution invaded their store. 
    edited April 2021 watto_cobra
  • Reply 34 of 47
    nicholfdnicholfd Posts: 782member
    No need now. We have secure and encrypted Signal on all platforms now. Too late. Also iMessage should have never steal telecommunication identification to use Apple network. Phone number is phone number - Apple ID is proprietary Apple ID. Two different things. Now Signal uses phone numbers, but it does not steal SMS/MMS and it does not interfere with telecommunication standards.
    WTF?

    iMessage doesn't steal anything.  The user links the phone number to Messages.  The user can unlink it.

    Can you receive/send regular SMS in Signal...  I doubt it.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 35 of 47
    nicholfdnicholfd Posts: 782member
    DangDave said:
    Thankfully Apple did not pursue an Android version of iMessage as Apple would then have had to host the chat services and maintain the software compatibility for hundreds of Android versions for multiple cell phone providers and carriers as they came and went. Although it did not incorporate interoperability between carriers or other providers, iMessage was based on the early specifications of RCS (aka chat) that began in 2007 and were adopted by the GSM in 2008. RCS continues to be a mixed bag of success and failures around the world. Last month Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile abandoned their cooperative interoperable RCS effort when they realized that Google has stepped up to host or dominate RCS for the Android crowd. 
    Apple's iMessage app would not have had to maintain software compatibility with hundreds of Android versions.  No app in the Play Store has to do that.  Where'd you even get an idea like that?  The iMessage app would have been hosted on the Play Store.  Any handset manufacturer that uses the Play Store would have had compatibility regardless of their skin of Android.  iMessage would have been an app just like any other.  
    And you are completely wrong.  I own 4 x android devices, three from Google & one from Amazon.  I have the Play store on all three.  On one of the Goolge sponsored/sold devices, there are some apps I own, that are not available for that device.  Plain and simple, the Play Store states, "This app is not compatible with your device."
    edited April 2021 watto_cobra
  • Reply 36 of 47
    nicholfdnicholfd Posts: 782member
    avon b7 said:
    I think that Epic simply wanted to prove that the concept of user lock in was actively considered and implemented at Apple.

    The communications around the iMessage issue do seem to show that Apple saw it as a way to prevent users moving to Android devices and acted on it to that end.

    Epic may have won this point. 
    It doesn't prevent anyone from moving to Android.  If they like the exclusive features of Apple's platform (os/apps), then it gives them an incentive to stay with Apple.  The user could decide the exclusive features of Apple's platform were not important to them, and still choose to move to Android.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 37 of 47
    nicholfdnicholfd Posts: 782member
    elijahg said:
    Still, so what? I’m sure if went through enough of Apple’s emails, you would see that part of the reason for everything in the Apple ecosystem working so well together is to lock users in and convenience. Epic would do the same thing. 
    Convenience and good experience should be the reason Apple's ecosystem is sticky, making people want to use the Apple ecosystem rather than being forced to use it through engineered lock-in. Lock-in is not a requirement for a good experience, and is no doubt something antitrust regulators will look at.
    What engineered lock-in?  It is because it works so well, and exclusive apps/features (iMessage) that people choose to stay with Apple.  If the user didn't value the exclusive features/apps, they can leave Apple's platforms and lose nothing (regarding iMessage).
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 38 of 47
    nicholfdnicholfd Posts: 782member
    elijahg said:
    elijahg said:
    Still, so what? I’m sure if went through enough of Apple’s emails, you would see that part of the reason for everything in the Apple ecosystem working so well together is to lock users in and convenience. Epic would do the same thing. 
    Convenience and good experience should be the reason Apple's ecosystem is sticky, making people want to use the Apple ecosystem rather than being forced to use it through engineered lock-in. Lock-in is not a requirement for a good experience, and is no doubt something antitrust regulators will look at.
    I think maybe some are confusing one thing for another.  There is no lock-in, per se.  Nobody is locked in, as that would imply they simply could not get out.  And of course they can.  When it comes time to buy a new smartphone any iPhone owner could buy an Android phone.  Doing so does NOT mean they are breaking free of something they were previously locked into.  Rather, it means that they are voluntarily opting out of the unique benefits of one ecosystem and opting in to the benefits associated with another ecosystem.  

    If the benefits unique to the iOS ecosystem are sufficiently attractive, a person may chose not to opt out.  That doesn’t mean they are locked in.  Anymore than a person is locked into a great romantic relationship.  They can opt out at any time but might not want to because that would entail giving up the benefits.  

    Marriage is more akin to lock in, as it involves a contractual commitment, that, if broken, entails potentially expensive settlement.  As far as I’m aware, as an Apple customer, I signed no contract compelling me to stay in the Apple ecosystem.  I am, therefore, in no manner locked in.  I opted in and I’m free to opt out, with the knowledge that doing so means I give up the benefits.  

    The lock-in comes from things like the HomePod only working with Apple devices, and the amount people have spent in the App Store. Leaving the iPhone would also entail potentially expensive losses. The spend on iOS apps would be a write off and you'd have to re-buy them on Android. Same of course in the other direction. Steam is an example of an App Store that works cross platform - buy once run anywhere. Apple is not allowing that form of competition. You can of course exit whenever you like, but doing so is not a zero cost (or even negligible cost) endeavour. That's the lock-in.
    So you are admitting the respective app stores are not "lock-in".  If you leave Windows for macOS, you have to purchase Mac apps & most vendors who support both OS's don't do cross OS licensing.

    Steam is not cross platform - there are plenty of games/apps that are Windows only.  Bad example.

    Here's a good analogy - you buy new windows for your existing, owned home.  Are you locked in?  Can you never leave that house, because you can't take those windows with you and use them in a different house?  No.  You are not locked in to anything.  You just make conscious decisions about what's important to you.
    thtwatto_cobra
  • Reply 39 of 47
    nicholfdnicholfd Posts: 782member
    elijahg said:
    Still, so what? I’m sure if went through enough of Apple’s emails, you would see that part of the reason for everything in the Apple ecosystem working so well together is to lock users in and convenience. Epic would do the same thing. 
    Convenience and good experience should be the reason Apple's ecosystem is sticky, making people want to use the Apple ecosystem rather than being forced to use it through engineered lock-in. Lock-in is not a requirement for a good experience, and is no doubt something antitrust regulators will look at.
    I think maybe some are confusing one thing for another.  There is no lock-in, per se.  Nobody is locked in, as that would imply they simply could not get out.  And of course they can.  When it comes time to buy a new smartphone any iPhone owner could buy an Android phone.  Doing so does NOT mean they are breaking free of something they were previously locked into.  Rather, it means that they are voluntarily opting out of the unique benefits of one ecosystem and opting in to the benefits associated with another ecosystem.  

    If the benefits unique to the iOS ecosystem are sufficiently attractive, a person may chose not to opt out.  That doesn’t mean they are locked in.  Anymore than a person is locked into a great romantic relationship.  They can opt out at any time but might not want to because that would entail giving up the benefits.  

    Marriage is more akin to lock in, as it involves a contractual commitment, that, if broken, entails potentially expensive settlement.  As far as I’m aware, as an Apple customer, I signed no contract compelling me to stay in the Apple ecosystem.  I am, therefore, in no manner locked in.  I opted in and I’m free to opt out, with the knowledge that doing so means I give up the benefits.  

    That's not what locked-in means in this context.  There's a term for what's being discussed here.  It's called Vendor Lock-In or Customer Lock-In.  The goal with Vendor Lock-In is to have the customer dependent on the vendor for goods and services, making switching an onerous task either from loss of desired and exclusive features or substantial cost to replace or a combination of both.

    Leave HBO? Sure. But no more GoT, Sopranos, Wire, or any of their other exclusives.  Same as theater movies at no additional cost?  Yeah, that stays with us.
    Leave Nike? By all means.  Good luck with the Reebok Jordan's or those fresh new Adidias LeBron's
    Leave Apple? Oh, okay. Well we're sorry to see you go.  Facetime and iMessage are really going to miss you.

    Pretty much every company worth it's salt tries to gain some type of vendor lock-in.
    I think a better term would be, feature exclusivity.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 40 of 47
    I don't think the parallel they're trying to drawn between iMessage on Android, and Epic's shenanigans is really there.

    iMessage on Android would be a great convenience for Apple costumers who happen to have a lot of less tasteful friends, acquaintances, coworkers, etc.—also there is the money side of this. That would bring no extra money to either Apple or Android manufactures—or Google for that matter. Apple elected not to do it, as was their choice, and then the market decided if that was a good or bad move to the company, to which I say it meant very little to nothing.

    Now Epic is trying to use Apple's APIs and infrastructure to make millions—which they did—while only paying 100 bucks annually for a developer account! Now can anyone explain to me how is that the model of a sustainable business relationship? A while back someone make some back of hand calculations about the cost of distributing Fortnite (a free app) to Apple hardware, given some official numbers available. The bill was up to 100,000 bucks, just in server costs! That's a thousand times what Epic purportedly wants to pay.

    Apple is a company that almost got broke 25 years ago. I guess they don't expect another miracle if they start doing deals like that again.
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.