“blocked the creation of an Android version of iMessage” Software isn’t life, it’s creation isn’t an imperative which can be blocked, it’s purposely written. I hope Apple lawyers are shutting down this de facto mandatory cross-platform narrative as messaging is already (infuriatingly) highly competitive.
That said, I wish Apple would work with Google on cross-platform messaging standards. Maybe upgrading SMS to RCS would be a start.
Is this supposed to be news or a shock?! Steve jobs discussed openly making Apple products ‘sticky’ by creating an integrated ecosystem and through services decades ago. I and I expect many others know this well and take no issue because by and large the approach has more benefits than drawbacks. If people want cross platform messaging they have myriad options such as signal etc. Moreover Apples business decisions are of no concern of Epic. I find this whole situation increasingly laughable the more I learn. They expect Apple to structure and run their business to suit Epic, When all of these developers should actually be kissing their arses for creating such an enormous economy and business opportunity that has benefitted millions. Ultimately at the end of all this though coding is tantamount to speech, and one cannot compel speech so nobody can technically force apple to change their business model or to write code to make it easier for devs such as Sweeney to make even more money from apple customers. Can they? And I still don’t get why there is even an argument to be had because if it were a brick and mortar store then nobody would argue that Apple be forced to allow a supplier to come and set up shop on their property. If you walked into a supermarket and set up a pop up store you’d expect to be thrown in a cell.
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?
because “anti-competitive!!”
Android stole software and hardware from Apple? How when:
1. iOS uses Objective C and Swift. Android uses Java (sorta), Kotlin and soon Rust 2. Apple uses the Ax. Android uses Qualcomm, MediaTek and Samsung Exynos 3. Most - or actually pretty much all - hardware features debut on Android years before they get to iOS. The only exception is iOS getting 64 bit CPUs and fingerprint scanners first.
Also, 99% of Android devices aren't identical across the board. And your comparisons to iMessage not being on Android make no sense either, as Apple Music has been on Android for years and Apple TV+ is on its way there. So yeah, 100% of the content in your post is wrong. You and I agree here, but your zeal to trash Android has utterly poisoned your thinking. I guess because your sincere and utter desire for Apple to have a mobile monopoly prevents you from making accurate arguments as to why they aren't one.
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?
because “anti-competitive!!”
Android stole software and hardware from Apple? How when:
1. iOS uses Objective C and Swift. Android uses Java (sorta), Kotlin and soon Rust 2. Apple uses the Ax. Android uses Qualcomm, MediaTek and Samsung Exynos 3. Most - or actually pretty much all - hardware features debut on Android years before they get to iOS. The only exception is iOS getting 64 bit CPUs and fingerprint scanners first.
Also, 99% of Android devices aren't identical across the board. And your comparisons to iMessage not being on Android make no sense either, as Apple Music has been on Android for years and Apple TV+ is on its way there. So yeah, 100% of the content in your post is wrong. You and I agree here, but your zeal to trash Android has utterly poisoned your thinking. I guess because your sincere and utter desire for Apple to have a mobile monopoly prevents you from making accurate arguments as to why they aren't one.
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.
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.
I was going to say the same thing. Especially among generation z like people my kid sisters ages all seem to default to WhatsApp and Insta etc. I use iMessage a lot along with signal but I must say if I were deciding to move to Android, iMessage wouldn’t even be a consideration I don’t think in deciding whether to bite the bullet or not. Certainly wouldn’t be a priority if it were considered at all.
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.
Apple is a company of nearly 150,000 people. The views of one person talking about lock-in are largely irrelevant, you can probably find any talking point you want over that many people. Even if this was a view held by upper management persistently, it is not an unreasonable one, it truly is the function of a company to reasonably protect their interests.
That said the statements aren't connected and displaying them side-by-side is Epic attempting to infer something that may never have been discussed. There are plenty of reasons for the higher-ups to say that developing for Android won't yield benefits for Apple. Android compatibility issues are well known and a poor iMessage experience on Android is not going to entice people to iOS. Safari on Windows also demonstrated to Apple that cross-platform seeding activities don't necessarily do anything.
Playing the devil's advocate, even if they did say it in that context - a view about one app at one point in time doesn't mean much for how Apple chooses to run their app store.
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?
because “anti-competitive!!”
Android stole software and hardware from Apple? How when:
1. iOS uses Objective C and Swift. Android uses Java (sorta), Kotlin and soon Rust 2. Apple uses the Ax. Android uses Qualcomm, MediaTek and Samsung Exynos 3. Most - or actually pretty much all - hardware features debut on Android years before they get to iOS. The only exception is iOS getting 64 bit CPUs and fingerprint scanners first.
Also, 99% of Android devices aren't identical across the board. And your comparisons to iMessage not being on Android make no sense either, as Apple Music has been on Android for years and Apple TV+ is on its way there. So yeah, 100% of the content in your post is wrong. You and I agree here, but your zeal to trash Android has utterly poisoned your thinking. I guess because your sincere and utter desire for Apple to have a mobile monopoly prevents you from making accurate arguments as to why they aren't one.
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)
People demand concrete proof to not trust Apple and Google.
I am not a gamer but have a question: Does Epic develop all of its games for the Macintosh? Do they develop ANY games for the Mac?
I mean, it's kind of amazing you commented on this post somehow not understanding that the entire legal battle between Epic and Apple is because of Fortnite, a game Epic published on iOS and Mac.
(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)
Hmm. One of those companies literally has sold personal information to shady political operatives and has been responsible for massive data and privacy leaks, all of which have been extremely well documented. The other is Apple.
It has often been said that manufacturers of light bulbs could have invented one that never needed replacing, but didn’t go down that track for obvious reasons. I don’t think that not developing something is anti-competitive. It’s like suing car makers for not inventing a car that runs on water.
What makes it hardest to leave the Porsche car ecosystem is the sheer quality of their setup and balancing of their cars with regards to handling and control and Cockpit-driver Integration.
So now they should be forced to offer a „Porschify“ package for all other brands so that drivers of those could experience the same?
if they really made such a ridiculously stupid argument, customers will hopefully turn away from Epic‘s games for good…..
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 …..
hm. Which of these is working (outside of a browser?) on PC or Mac? The fact that iMessage works on my Mac too and the messages are in full sync so that I can switch in the middle of a conversation without the other person noticing makes me choose it over WA, signal, telegram, messenger anytime I can. But that’s not called lock-in, it’s called high customer satisfaction!
If it can be proven that Apple knowingly used the term 'lock in' in its internal decisions it definitely won't bode well.
Why is that? Just replace it with „customer retention“, „recurring revenue“, „subscription model“, „brand relationship“, „well-integrated ecosystem of products and services“ and you just graduated from „Marketing 101“. And even stronger martial language („killing off competition“) has been used in business communication everywhere forever!
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.
That’s not just a different „category“, this is about access to information of public interest. It’s a bit more far fetched in sports though by the amount of interest in football it also makes sense, but a better example is real-time access to public proceedings in parliament or congress. This is then about freedom of the press, transparency of government and legislation and therefore one of the foundational building blocks of any functioning democratic system. If such channels were controlled by any single for-profit media company and they could select/filter content of public interest or limit access to that to their customers, it would be a problem.
locking in Someone into a specific community of users where it’s about personal preference, etc., is generally not in the same category unless one offering is so dominant that it becomes a de facto monopoly allowing for no more competition to ever come up.
the latter is clearly not the case with iMessage and iOS and Apple in general. Also they are not the only Provider of key content of public interest with these tools. And they are offering epic the use of their platform for a fee/cut and under certain clearly published conditions.
no Problem here, just a well run company with decision makers doing their job.
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.
That might be true in some countries like the US, but globally this is definitely a false claim. Most telco operators in the world had unlimited of virtual unlimited (including >10K SMS messages a month) plans for their mobile phones subscriptions before the launch of iPhone.
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.
Warren Buffet on CNBC in early 2018 when asked why he had invested so much in AAPL.
"Apple has an extraordinary consumer franchise," said Buffett. "I see how strong that ecosystem is, to an extraordinary degree. You are very, very, very locked in, at least psychologically and mentally, to the product you are using. [iPhone] is a very sticky product."
So just exactly how Apple is using iMessage to "lock in" iOS users, news to anyone outside of Apple? If the "Oracle of Omaha" said that iPhone users are "... very, very, very locked in...." in public, you really think it matters in an anti-trust case, if Apple used the term "lock in" in any internal discussion?
Here's another "lock-in" that passed anti-trust scrutiny, if anyone even thought it was a matter for anti-trust.
Back in the late 90's, Bungie (a Mac only developer) came out with a very popular game that was only on a Mac,"Marathon". Many probably never heard of it, but they surely heard of it's successor ....."Halo". "Halo" was going to be a Mac only game and was about to be released in a matter of months, until Microsoft bought out Bungie and turned "Halo" into an exclusive game for their X-Box. The "Halo" franchise today, is still only on an X-Box.
For sure, if Microsoft had acquired "Halo" and made it an exclusive for Windows, they would had ended up in anti-trust Hell. But because the X-Box at the time was just a minor player in the game console market, there was no issue. Microsoft was not abusing their monopoly they have with Windows, to compete with (at the time) OS9.
The "lock-in" Microsoft have with "Halo" only on an X-Box is no different than the "lock in" Apple have with iMessage on an iDevice.
Now if Microsoft were to make "MS Office" a Windows exclusive, that is a completely different matter when it comes to anti-trust. Microsoft have no reason that would pass anti-trust scrutiny, to lock in Windows users and force OSX users that needs "MS Office", to migrate to Windows. That at least, should be very obvious, why it would be an anti-trust matter.
Comments
Software isn’t life, it’s creation isn’t an imperative which can be blocked, it’s purposely written.
I hope Apple lawyers are shutting down this de facto mandatory cross-platform narrative as messaging is already (infuriatingly) highly competitive.
That said, I wish Apple would work with Google on cross-platform messaging standards. Maybe upgrading SMS to RCS would be a start.
How when:
1. iOS uses Objective C and Swift. Android uses Java (sorta), Kotlin and soon Rust
2. Apple uses the Ax. Android uses Qualcomm, MediaTek and Samsung Exynos
3. Most - or actually pretty much all - hardware features debut on Android years before they get to iOS. The only exception is iOS getting 64 bit CPUs and fingerprint scanners first.
Also, 99% of Android devices aren't identical across the board. And your comparisons to iMessage not being on Android make no sense either, as Apple Music has been on Android for years and Apple TV+ is on its way there. So yeah, 100% of the content in your post is wrong. You and I agree here, but your zeal to trash Android has utterly poisoned your thinking. I guess because your sincere and utter desire for Apple to have a mobile monopoly prevents you from making accurate arguments as to why they aren't one.
That said the statements aren't connected and displaying them side-by-side is Epic attempting to infer something that may never have been discussed. There are plenty of reasons for the higher-ups to say that developing for Android won't yield benefits for Apple. Android compatibility issues are well known and a poor iMessage experience on Android is not going to entice people to iOS. Safari on Windows also demonstrated to Apple that cross-platform seeding activities don't necessarily do anything.
Playing the devil's advocate, even if they did say it in that context - a view about one app at one point in time doesn't mean much for how Apple chooses to run their app store.
People don’t trust Apple “just because”.
As far as others, if only there were a way to look these things up... Oh:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_by_Epic_Games
Hmm. One of those companies literally has sold personal information to shady political operatives and has been responsible for massive data and privacy leaks, all of which have been extremely well documented. The other is Apple.
So now they should be forced to offer a „Porschify“ package for all other brands so that drivers of those could experience the same?
if they really made such a ridiculously stupid argument, customers will hopefully turn away from Epic‘s games for good…..
"Apple has an extraordinary consumer franchise," said Buffett. "I see how strong that ecosystem is, to an extraordinary degree. You are very, very, very locked in, at least psychologically and mentally, to the product you are using. [iPhone] is a very sticky product."
https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/02/26/sticky-iphone-caused-warren-buffetts-berkshire-hathaway-to-buy-more-aapl-than-anything-else-in-2017
So just exactly how Apple is using iMessage to "lock in" iOS users, news to anyone outside of Apple? If the "Oracle of Omaha" said that iPhone users are "... very, very, very locked in...." in public, you really think it matters in an anti-trust case, if Apple used the term "lock in" in any internal discussion?
Here's another "lock-in" that passed anti-trust scrutiny, if anyone even thought it was a matter for anti-trust.
Back in the late 90's, Bungie (a Mac only developer) came out with a very popular game that was only on a Mac,"Marathon". Many probably never heard of it, but they surely heard of it's successor ....."Halo". "Halo" was going to be a Mac only game and was about to be released in a matter of months, until Microsoft bought out Bungie and turned "Halo" into an exclusive game for their X-Box. The "Halo" franchise today, is still only on an X-Box.
https://www.iphoneincanada.ca/news/steve-jobs-introduces-halo-game-for-mac/
For sure, if Microsoft had acquired "Halo" and made it an exclusive for Windows, they would had ended up in anti-trust Hell. But because the X-Box at the time was just a minor player in the game console market, there was no issue. Microsoft was not abusing their monopoly they have with Windows, to compete with (at the time) OS9.
The "lock-in" Microsoft have with "Halo" only on an X-Box is no different than the "lock in" Apple have with iMessage on an iDevice.
Now if Microsoft were to make "MS Office" a Windows exclusive, that is a completely different matter when it comes to anti-trust. Microsoft have no reason that would pass anti-trust scrutiny, to lock in Windows users and force OSX users that needs "MS Office", to migrate to Windows. That at least, should be very obvious, why it would be an anti-trust matter.