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."
I am not completely wrong. I'm not wrong at all. App developers decide on the lowest level device their apps will support. If Apple wanted a hypothetical iMessage app to support any Android device going back to... let's pick Gingerbread... they could do so. If they wanted to support processors going as far back as the MSM8960, they could do so. What they wouldn't have to do is try to support for hundreds of Android versions. No app maker has to do anything like that.
I have iOS and Android devices as well. There are apps in both app stores that don't support my older devices. That's because devs in both ecosystems code to their own choice of min requirements.
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.
That's phrase sounds like marketing speak. If you prefer that phrase, I doubt anyone would challenge you on it. I think Vendor Lock-In more accurately describes what we're discussing. Based on the quotes from the execs, I think they were clearly talking about vendor lock-in.
It makes sense for the likes of Facebook to run Whatsapp. They need the billions of users out there to feed their profiling and ad-targeting network.
However why would Apple want to support billions of users? It doesn't provide any reason to move to the Apple platform, and being the dominant chat platform is an anti-trust inviting, worthless trophy.
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).
In this context, what truly constitutes lock in isn't really the point. The point is that executives at Apple considered it a type of lock in and used it to that effect.
Also, users just cannot simply up and leave a platform. There are considerations because 99% of users don't simply land on iPhones (or Android phones) out of the blue. There is an up front outlay (the investment in the phone itself) plus possible investments in ecosystem and apps.
There are lots of factors at play even if the main focus today centres on app stores.
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).
In this context, what truly constitutes lock in isn't really the point. The point is that executives at Apple considered it a type of lock in and used it to that effect.
Also, users just cannot simply up and leave a platform. There are considerations because 99% of users don't simply land on iPhones (or Android phones) out of the blue. There is an up front outlay (the investment in the phone itself) plus possible investments in ecosystem and apps.
There are lots of factors at play even if the main focus today centres on app stores.
It's you that need to put things into context and see that you have no point to make. This conversation between Apple executives and Eddy Cue about "locking in" iOS users took place in 2013. Just exactly what was Apple iPhone and iPad market share back in 2013? In 2013, Nokia and BlackBerry were still a force in the market. In 2013, Microsoft partner with Nokia in the smartphone market and rumored to take over the market in the next several years. In 2013, Android was not the force as it is today. Why shouldn't Apple be concern about maintaining their market share back in 2013?
You putting the context of Apple's business decisions in 2013, to what Apple is today and saying that it doesn't bode well, is pointless.
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).
In this context, what truly constitutes lock in isn't really the point. The point is that executives at Apple considered it a type of lock in and used it to that effect.
Also, users just cannot simply up and leave a platform. There are considerations because 99% of users don't simply land on iPhones (or Android phones) out of the blue. There is an up front outlay (the investment in the phone itself) plus possible investments in ecosystem and apps.
There are lots of factors at play even if the main focus today centres on app stores.
It's you that need to put things into context and see that you have no point to make. This conversation between Apple executives and Eddy Cue about "locking in" iOS users took place in 2013. Just exactly what was Apple iPhone and iPad market share back in 2013? In 2013, Nokia and BlackBerry were still a force in the market. In 2013, Microsoft partner with Nokia in the smartphone market and rumored to take over the market in the next several years. In 2013, Android was not the force as it is today. Why shouldn't Apple be concern about maintaining their market share back in 2013?
You putting the context of Apple's business decisions in 2013, to what Apple is today and saying that it doesn't bode well, is pointless.
It is absolutely relevant. When these things happened doesn't mean much at all. What counts is the intent behind it and seeing as Apple never brought Messages to Android after that, it would be reasonable to assume that the thinking behind the decision hasn't changed.
Epic isn't trying to push this because it is old and irrevelant. It is trying to push it because it is painting a picture of Apple.
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).
In this context, what truly constitutes lock in isn't really the point. The point is that executives at Apple considered it a type of lock in and used it to that effect.
Also, users just cannot simply up and leave a platform. There are considerations because 99% of users don't simply land on iPhones (or Android phones) out of the blue. There is an up front outlay (the investment in the phone itself) plus possible investments in ecosystem and apps.
There are lots of factors at play even if the main focus today centres on app stores.
It's you that need to put things into context and see that you have no point to make. This conversation between Apple executives and Eddy Cue about "locking in" iOS users took place in 2013. Just exactly what was Apple iPhone and iPad market share back in 2013? In 2013, Nokia and BlackBerry were still a force in the market. In 2013, Microsoft partner with Nokia in the smartphone market and rumored to take over the market in the next several years. In 2013, Android was not the force as it is today. Why shouldn't Apple be concern about maintaining their market share back in 2013?
You putting the context of Apple's business decisions in 2013, to what Apple is today and saying that it doesn't bode well, is pointless.
It is absolutely relevant. When these things happened doesn't mean much at all. What counts is the intent behind it and seeing as Apple never brought Messages to Android after that, it would be reasonable to assume that the thinking behind the decision hasn't changed.
Epic isn't trying to push this because it is old and irrevelant. It is trying to push it because it is painting a picture of Apple.
It is totally relevant.
What picture do you think this paints?
Apple's platform has exclusivity on certain features. iMessage is one of them. Most manufactures try to provide exclusive features/differences (or should at lest). What's wrong with this?
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).
In this context, what truly constitutes lock in isn't really the point. The point is that executives at Apple considered it a type of lock in and used it to that effect.
Also, users just cannot simply up and leave a platform. There are considerations because 99% of users don't simply land on iPhones (or Android phones) out of the blue. There is an up front outlay (the investment in the phone itself) plus possible investments in ecosystem and apps.
There are lots of factors at play even if the main focus today centres on app stores.
It's you that need to put things into context and see that you have no point to make. This conversation between Apple executives and Eddy Cue about "locking in" iOS users took place in 2013. Just exactly what was Apple iPhone and iPad market share back in 2013? In 2013, Nokia and BlackBerry were still a force in the market. In 2013, Microsoft partner with Nokia in the smartphone market and rumored to take over the market in the next several years. In 2013, Android was not the force as it is today. Why shouldn't Apple be concern about maintaining their market share back in 2013?
You putting the context of Apple's business decisions in 2013, to what Apple is today and saying that it doesn't bode well, is pointless.
It is absolutely relevant. When these things happened doesn't mean much at all. What counts is the intent behind it and seeing as Apple never brought Messages to Android after that, it would be reasonable to assume that the thinking behind the decision hasn't changed.
Epic isn't trying to push this because it is old and irrevelant. It is trying to push it because it is painting a picture of Apple.
It is totally relevant.
What picture do you think this paints?
Apple's platform has exclusivity on certain features. iMessage is one of them. Most manufactures try to provide exclusive features/differences (or should at lest). What's wrong with this?
Times change.
It wasn't that long ago that your doctor could smoke right there in front of you during an appointment.
In this case (and hundreds more) measures are being planned to increase consumer protections against companies that are considered to be abusing their position to reduce competition.
The exclusive features themselves have nothing to do with anything.
Comments
I have iOS and Android devices as well. There are apps in both app stores that don't support my older devices. That's because devs in both ecosystems code to their own choice of min requirements.
That's phrase sounds like marketing speak. If you prefer that phrase, I doubt anyone would challenge you on it. I think Vendor Lock-In more accurately describes what we're discussing. Based on the quotes from the execs, I think they were clearly talking about vendor lock-in.
However why would Apple want to support billions of users? It doesn't provide any reason to move to the Apple platform, and being the dominant chat platform is an anti-trust inviting, worthless trophy.
Also, users just cannot simply up and leave a platform. There are considerations because 99% of users don't simply land on iPhones (or Android phones) out of the blue. There is an up front outlay (the investment in the phone itself) plus possible investments in ecosystem and apps.
There are lots of factors at play even if the main focus today centres on app stores.
You putting the context of Apple's business decisions in 2013, to what Apple is today and saying that it doesn't bode well, is pointless.
Epic isn't trying to push this because it is old and irrevelant. It is trying to push it because it is painting a picture of Apple.
It is totally relevant.
Apple's platform has exclusivity on certain features. iMessage is one of them. Most manufactures try to provide exclusive features/differences (or should at lest). What's wrong with this?
It wasn't that long ago that your doctor could smoke right there in front of you during an appointment.
In this case (and hundreds more) measures are being planned to increase consumer protections against companies that are considered to be abusing their position to reduce competition.
The exclusive features themselves have nothing to do with anything.