I very much doubt anyone is staying on iOS for iMessage. It’s good, but not markedly better than the alternatives really. Obviously it’s the whole package of iOS + ecosystem that makes iOS so sticky, but this in itself doesn’t prove anticompetitiveness. If it did, then every app Apple made would have to be on android too.
I wonder if all Android variations will be able to guarantee exporting to the iPhone!!! If not, why should Apple (the minority platform) be obliged?
I don't understand the question. Can you explain? Incidentally, once (heavy Epic Games investor Tencent's) China is taken off the board, the "all Android variants" thing doesn't exist. While this may not have been true 10 or as recently 7 years ago, from a software perspective, all Android is Google Android. And from a hardware perspective, finding an Android phone or tablet that runs anything other than Qualcomm, MediaTek or Samsung SOCs is very difficult.
I very much doubt anyone is staying on iOS for iMessage. It’s good, but not markedly better than the alternatives really. Obviously it’s the whole package of iOS + ecosystem that makes iOS so sticky, but this in itself doesn’t prove anticompetitiveness. If it did, then every app Apple made would have to be on android too.
This is 100% wrong. Lots of people are. But - again - this is standard business practices and has been for decades. I don't see why anyone is making a big deal of it here.
So a former employee claims Apple was trying to keep a competitive advantage? That’s shocking. Not.
I don’t understand why Epic thinks Apple had any obligation to do anything differently.
As Apple (and others) are put inder the digital age microscope, it is these scenarios that take on more significance.
Where is the line between 'competitive advantage' and 'anti-competitive advantage'. ?
Over the coming months and years we will surely find out and I wouldn't be at all surprised if platform providers are forced to provide a 'key' to their 'locks'.
Perhaps not necessarily in the form of forced cross platform use but in the form of a way to export everything in a way that can be imported into alternative systems.
Disagree with that because if we were to follow that logic, then Epic Games should be forced to port their games over to the Mac. And not some cheap feature reduced version of their games, because that would offer an anti-competitive advantage to Apple's competitors.
As I said, this will be resolved at a higher level and for everybody.
It depends on where lines are drawn.
For example, are games used as a 'lock in' or simply as an incentive?
Are games and communication in the same category?
Huh? What games? Apple don't make any significant games.
Of course games and communication aren't in the same category, the categories are games and communication.
Having a lot of trouble understanding your angle here. There's no sense in saying Apple behaved anti-competitively by not delivering iMessage for Android, that's an insane standard to set.
You might be able to say that they behaved anti-competitively by bundling iMessage with iOS, but the victim there would be competitive messaging apps, not Android. And since iOS is far from a monopoly it doesn't really stick; companies can behave anti-competitively perfectly legally, it's only when they abuse power in some way that it (arguably) becomes a regulatory matter.
There are some blurry areas and I'm not privvy to the opinions on competition, although I can see why it is being looked at and might be used for leverage in some cases. How things will swing in the end, I don't know, but I don't think that Apple (or anyone else) will have an easy ride here.
If it can be proven that Apple knowingly used the term 'lock in' in its internal decisions it definitely won't bode well.
The subject of categorisation isn't so much about 'games' or 'communication' per se but the category they are judged to fall into on a legislative level.
To give you an example, years ago pay channels in the UK were able to 'snatch' the rights to televised football and effectively make anyone with an interest in watching football on tv have to pay for it. The same tactic didn't work in Spain where football (the league at least) was considered to be of 'general interest' and thus 'protected' to a degree.
When I say 'category' it is in that sense and, just like in the case of football, different legislative bodies may view the same situations differently.
Personally, I'd lean towards communications being viewed differently to games but that's just an opinion and that's why we'll have to wait and see what comes out of this.
The reference to 'games' was simply due to the example posed by the OP.
I am pretty sure this was case especially when messages were redirected from normal telecommunication system SMS/MMS and redirected to Appple Messenger. Apple used dumb and very painful technique of misidentifying receipient based on phone number which should be prohibited by FCC. This ended up (also for me) that if you bought multiple their devices and register for yourself, but gave as present to family members your messages were misdelivered to family members and frequently did not reach your iPhone. I had freind law enforcement officer sending me important messages like that that ended up thousands miles away on my family iPad and never on my iPhone.
Apple also had suit because they locked phone numbers with messaging system and if you moved to Android your messages would not reach you. In addition to that if you wanted to send SMS messages to person who had iPhone you were notified that other person uses iPhone and you caannot send SMS messages to that person from other device or unregistered (phone number) iPhone that was outside iCloud. I expereinced that personally. This again should be prohibited by FCC and Apple should be punished. SMS/MMS system is no Apple enterprise or standard and they should stick to standards properly. Their phone number unregistering tool sucked and worked only if you had Apple computer which again does not sound like legitimate approach. In any case tool did not unregister you permanantly and you had to call their support. That I have done personally and they apologized for this mess.
Many people moved to Android including myslef for those exact reasons of Apple strategy that started resembling what Microsoft was doing in '90 and few years after year 2000.
It is not that hardware or solutions are bad at Apple, but strategy becomes arrogant without consideration about competition and alternatives and brainwashed.
Today we have other means of sending messages and far more secure than Apple solutions working on all devices. One of them is encrypted traffic Signal and we do not need Messenger anymore. At least Signal while requires phone number it does not misidentify devices as every device is associated with phone number and you transfer communication to only one device when you are logged in.
Before people say "but Google" ... when did YouTube, Gmail, Chrome, Google Maps etc. get released on Windows Phone again? Or even in the Windows Store so that they can be installed on Microsoft's various attempts to compete with ChromeOS (Windows Education, Windows 10S and soon Windows 10X)? Microsoft fans to this day grumble that Google's refusing to release Windows Mobile apps for their services killed any chance that it had to survive. (What they leave out was that Microsoft's locking out Google services from their mobile platforms is what caused Google to create Android in the first place. A decision that Microsoft surely regrets to this day.)
No it is not standard practice. Are these Apple standards? You may check other messaging systems to verify you "standard practice" claim. BTW redirecting SMS/MMS traffic that is telecommunication standard may be considered illegal (and it was challenged) and not "standard practice" as you stated. Apple is subject to telecommunication standards and SMS/MMS was not their invention.
The fact that two perpetrators try to violate standards and rules established by industry does not qualify for "standard practice" - it qualifies for both being violators and subject to penalties.
I very much doubt anyone is staying on iOS for iMessage. It’s good, but not markedly better than the alternatives really. Obviously it’s the whole package of iOS + ecosystem that makes iOS so sticky, but this in itself doesn’t prove anticompetitiveness. If it did, then every app Apple made would have to be on android too.
This is 100% wrong.* Lots of people are. But - again - this is standard business practices and has been for decades. I don't see why anyone is making a big deal of it here.
In your opinion*
How do you know "Lots of people are"? Please do provide proof. I know at least 10 people with iPhones, and I am the only one who uses iMessage in preference to anything else, be that Viber, FB Messenger or Whatsapp. Most of my iPhone toting friends just default to Whatsapp for everything because its what everyone else has, even if we've previously chatted over iMessage.
(discounting privacy concerns, but I honestly dont trust apple any more than I do facebook and i think those that believe apples privacy PR are really quite naive)
Apple and Facebook are at opposite ends of the privacy spectrum. Heck, even Google is a far cry better than Facebook!
BTW, iMessage is one of the few messaging apps that is end-to-end encrypted, so unless you have iCloud sync turned on for Messages (and probably even then, though I'm not 100% certain) Apple literally cannot see your iMessages.
This reminds me of when people argue and they bring irrelevant points into the conversation. ”You never paid me back my $20.... oh and your diet is horrible!!”
I always thought Apple should charge $1 a month for iMessage and FaceTime on android.
And this logic that Apple has to lend a helping hand to knockoffs who already stole software and hardware from Apple is ridiculous. I don’t know why @"avon b7" wants iKnockoffs to be EVEN MORE similar. How much more similar should knockoff iPhones be? At that point “customer choice” is an illusion. It’s already an illusion on Android when 99% of the device are identical across the board. I hate that people scream “anti-competitive!” When a company invents or develops projects but doesn’t share them.
What next? Nintendo expected to port their library of games to Xbox? Walmart expected to build stores for the competition? Porn allowed on YouTube? Netflix produced shows on Hulu?
This is true, but largely irrelevant to the Epic case.
I think the posters here don’t know many teens. It’s not that there aren’t equivalent or better chat clients, it’s that all your friends are on iMessage. Definite source of lock-in.
and as a result i’m forced to use WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, all of which have serious drawbacks over iMessage, but are cross platform.
There are a few, rare scenarios when the use of Signal over iMessage makes sense, but by and large, it doesn’t mean people stay on Apple devices, but that Apple users are forced to use lesser products to remain interoperable
A deliberate attempt to spin something totally normal as if it was evil.
I think you've hit on Epic's primary strategy for this whole thing: hope that the court system is confused about how the software/hardware market functions.
i dont think there is anything very special about iMessage, i frankly dont think its very good at all.
but in saying that I hardly use it aside from some personal messages
i have a large work contact base on mixed platforms so i am forced to almost exclusively use WhatsApp, because thats where the users are, and its a good app to be fair, in fact i would say a lot better than iMessage
(discounting privacy concerns, but I honestly dont trust apple any more than I do facebook and i think those that believe apples privacy PR are really quite naive)
Ah ... another Android Army post.
Anyone who trusts Facebook as much as Apple deserves to have all his private data on the dark web.
If anything Apple's iMessage has broken the carrier's lock on text/sms messaging, forcing them to include it as part of our plans instead of charging as an extra line item on our bills all while showing them what really text messaging should look like.
Prior to Apple iMessing I refused to pay for text messaging and when it was released my "texts" were limited to friends with iPhones, others received emails.
If anything Apple's iMessage has broken the carrier's lock on text/sms messaging, forcing them to include it as part of our plans instead of charging as an extra line item on our bills all while showing them what really text messaging should look like.
Prior to Apple iMessing I refused to pay for text messaging and when it was released my "texts" were limited to friends with iPhones, others received emails.
Excellent point. I used to be charged per message.
Before people say "but Google" ... when did YouTube, Gmail, Chrome, Google Maps etc. get released on Windows Phone again? Or even in the Windows Store so that they can be installed on Microsoft's various attempts to compete with ChromeOS (Windows Education, Windows 10S and soon Windows 10X)? Microsoft fans to this day grumble that Google's refusing to release Windows Mobile apps for their services killed any chance that it had to survive. (What they leave out was that Microsoft's locking out Google services from their mobile platforms is what caused Google to create Android in the first place. A decision that Microsoft surely regrets to this day.)
Click bait. Wouldn't surprise me if the next story is "Apple Does Not Allow Epic Employees To Use Its Cafeteria."
All it takes is one ignorant judge to buy this nonsense. There are already enough ignorant politicians that are clueless about competition and monopolistic behavior.
Other messenger developers has to make iOS version to stay relevant. Apple do not need it. Apple would make in crossplatform as Steve planned it but patent disputies hobbled the effort and in meantime Apple changed mind. Not sure patent disputies were covering iMessage but for sure Facetime.
Comments
If it can be proven that Apple knowingly used the term 'lock in' in its internal decisions it definitely won't bode well.
The subject of categorisation isn't so much about 'games' or 'communication' per se but the category they are judged to fall into on a legislative level.
To give you an example, years ago pay channels in the UK were able to 'snatch' the rights to televised football and effectively make anyone with an interest in watching football on tv have to pay for it. The same tactic didn't work in Spain where football (the league at least) was considered to be of 'general interest' and thus 'protected' to a degree.
When I say 'category' it is in that sense and, just like in the case of football, different legislative bodies may view the same situations differently.
Personally, I'd lean towards communications being viewed differently to games but that's just an opinion and that's why we'll have to wait and see what comes out of this.
The reference to 'games' was simply due to the example posed by the OP.
How do you know "Lots of people are"? Please do provide proof. I know at least 10 people with iPhones, and I am the only one who uses iMessage in preference to anything else, be that Viber, FB Messenger or Whatsapp. Most of my iPhone toting friends just default to Whatsapp for everything because its what everyone else has, even if we've previously chatted over iMessage.
”You never paid me back my $20.... oh and your diet is horrible!!”
I always thought Apple should charge $1 a month for iMessage and FaceTime on android.
And this logic that Apple has to lend a helping hand to knockoffs who already stole software and hardware from Apple is ridiculous. I don’t know why @"avon b7" wants iKnockoffs to be EVEN MORE similar. How much more similar should knockoff iPhones be? At that point “customer choice” is an illusion. It’s already an illusion on Android when 99% of the device are identical across the board. I hate that people scream “anti-competitive!” When a company invents or develops projects but doesn’t share them.
What next? Nintendo expected to port their library of games to Xbox? Walmart expected to build stores for the competition? Porn allowed on YouTube? Netflix produced shows on Hulu?
because “anti-competitive!!”
Hardly statement that Apple's intent was to keep iMessage running only on Apple devices.
I think the posters here don’t know many teens. It’s not that there aren’t equivalent or better chat clients, it’s that all your friends are on iMessage. Definite source of lock-in.
There are a few, rare scenarios when the use of Signal over iMessage makes sense, but by and large, it doesn’t mean people stay on Apple devices, but that Apple users are forced to use lesser products to remain interoperable
Anyone who trusts Facebook as much as Apple deserves to have all his private data on the dark web.
Prior to Apple iMessing I refused to pay for text messaging and when it was released my "texts" were limited to friends with iPhones, others received emails.
Click bait. Wouldn't surprise me if the next story is "Apple Does Not Allow Epic Employees To Use Its Cafeteria."