Apple kept iMessage off Android to lock users in to iOS

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 97
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    avon b7 said:
    thedba said:
    avon b7 said:
    williamh said:
    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? 

    Is that line you speak of a socialized version capitalism?   Where the products of one company have to be opened up for all simply because it is a superior product?  Or, the other company wants a chunk of the profits?

    No, anti-capitalist charges have always been based on proof of suppressing competition to promote a monopoly.
    For instance, China just fined Alibaba a few billion dollars because they forced their vendors to stop selling on any other platform -- effectively giving Alibaba a monopoly.  THAT is what antitrust action is about.

    This approach by EA is simply a version of the currently popular:  "I don't  benefit from this, so I will declare it an 'evil menace' and stir up some hate and fear against it".


    watto_cobra
  • Reply 62 of 97
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    Part of this is based on the misconception that Apple is a hardware company that uses software and ecosystem to suppress other hardware vendors.  

    The foundation of that argument is false.  Instead, Apple is NOT a hardware (only) company.   It's software and ecosystems are integral parts of its "Product".   For example:  until recently no Mac that had been sold in the last decade was in any significant way different from any Windows laptop -- except for the software and ecosystem it supported.   For Mac's, the hardware is (still) not significantly different from any high end Windows machine.  But the software and ecosystem are what set them apart.
    ...  So why could any competitor demand that Apple open up its software and ecosystem to them?  
    ...  How would that be different from GM demanding that Tesla let them run their self driving technology on GM cars?
    ........  Is Tesla's self driving technology superior to GM's?   YES!
    ........  Does it help Tesla sell it's cars?   YES!
    ........  Is it a reason to buy a Tesla over and GM?    YES!
    ........  Does it give Tesla a competitive advantage over GM?   YES!
    ........  Is Tesla obligated to share it with GM?   HELL NO!
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 63 of 97
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    DAalseth said:
    This is just smoke. They're trying to deflect attention from the facts because they know they have a weak case.

    That's a pretty standard tactic for lawyers.
    I've enjoyed listening to the Chauvin trial partly just to hear the arguments.   Frequently the defense attorney attempts to defect attention from damning testimony by asking questions like "Is it ever possible that a policeman might feel threatened by a a detainee?"  Meanwhile, the detainee in the case was handcuffed, laying face down in the street with three big guys on top of him!
    ... It's essentially argument by muddying the waters -- spread doubt and confusion.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 64 of 97
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 6,292member
    avon b7 said:
    thedba said:
    avon b7 said:
    williamh said:
    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? 

    Is that line you speak of a socialized version capitalism?   Where the products of one company have to be opened up for all simply because it is a superior product?  Or, the other company wants a chunk of the profits?

    No, anti-capitalist charges have always been based on proof of suppressing competition to promote a monopoly.
    For instance, China just fined Alibaba a few billion dollars because they forced their vendors to stop selling on any other platform -- effectively giving Alibaba a monopoly.  THAT is what antitrust action is about.

    This approach by EA is simply a version of the currently popular:  "I don't  benefit from this, so I will declare it an 'evil menace' and stir up some hate and fear against it".


    We'll have to wait and see how it is viewed at a legislative level. Until the case is deliberated it is difficult to know how things will swing.

    For sure though, iMessage/Messages has never been a superior product IMO.

    That said, if, as result of what gets dug out of internal communications at Apple, it is revealed that the company wilfully used the feature to lock customers in, I think it could rebound negatively. 
  • Reply 65 of 97
    DogpersonDogperson Posts: 140member
    Headline:
    Ford Prohibits Chevy from Using Ford Parts
    🤣🤣🤣
    GeorgeBMac12Strangerswatto_cobra
  • Reply 66 of 97
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 6,292member
    avon b7 said:
    thedba said:
    avon b7 said:
    williamh said:
    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? 

    Is that line you speak of a socialized version capitalism?   Where the products of one company have to be opened up for all simply because it is a superior product?  Or, the other company wants a chunk of the profits?

    No, anti-capitalist charges have always been based on proof of suppressing competition to promote a monopoly.
    For instance, China just fined Alibaba a few billion dollars because they forced their vendors to stop selling on any other platform -- effectively giving Alibaba a monopoly.  THAT is what antitrust action is about.

    This approach by EA is simply a version of the currently popular:  "I don't  benefit from this, so I will declare it an 'evil menace' and stir up some hate and fear against it".


    Buffet's opinion won't hold any weight in this process. I'm not sure that communications and games will be looked at in the same way either.

    Also, it worth remembering that the same 'situations' can be viewed differently through the lawmaking process at different points in time. 
  • Reply 67 of 97
    maximaramaximara Posts: 405member
    thedba said:
    avon b7 said:
    williamh said:
    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.
    This is why I have been saying Epic is short sighted fools.  If one follows their loopy logic (if it can be called that) to its ultimate conclusion there can be no exclusives period,  No console exclusives, no platform exclusives and the like.  The total absurdity of this position is obvious to anyone with a functioning brain...which seems to leave Epic out in a lurch. :-) 
    edited April 2021 watto_cobra
  • Reply 68 of 97
    longfanglongfang Posts: 289member
    So is Epic suggesting that Apple was obligated to go out of their way to help Android? If so they are bigger ass hats than I previously thought.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 69 of 97
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    thedba said:
    avon b7 said:
    williamh said:
    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? 

    Is that line you speak of a socialized version capitalism?   Where the products of one company have to be opened up for all simply because it is a superior product?  Or, the other company wants a chunk of the profits?

    No, anti-capitalist charges have always been based on proof of suppressing competition to promote a monopoly.
    For instance, China just fined Alibaba a few billion dollars because they forced their vendors to stop selling on any other platform -- effectively giving Alibaba a monopoly.  THAT is what antitrust action is about.

    This approach by EA is simply a version of the currently popular:  "I don't  benefit from this, so I will declare it an 'evil menace' and stir up some hate and fear against it".


    We'll have to wait and see how it is viewed at a legislative level. Until the case is deliberated it is difficult to know how things will swing.

    For sure though, iMessage/Messages has never been a superior product IMO.

    That said, if, as result of what gets dug out of internal communications at Apple, it is revealed that the company wilfully used the feature to lock customers in, I think it could rebound negatively. 

    Likewise, the ramifications of socializing capitalism would be severe.
    Capitalism rests on selling products -- not giving them to less capable competitors.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 70 of 97
    Shocking! Here are some other Business 101 shocking facts  -  I just learned that CBS kept its content away from ABC to lock in viewers! And get this, At Costco, you buy a membership and only members can shop there. Totally locked in. AND insurance companies look at the costs and likely hood of event to decide on premiums, for instance what it costs you to get coverage for windshield repair, they decide that cost on the likelihood of it happening and the how much it costs to do the repair! 

    The list is long. I even heard that Netflix sells a membership and you can't watch what they make unless you 'buy in' to their entertainment eco-system!

    And I went to buy a new Subaru. Guess what. The Ford dealership doesn't sell them ! Totally locked out of that market!

    Idiots are astounded at how the world operates.
    edited April 2021 watto_cobraGeorgeBMactmay
  • Reply 71 of 97
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 6,292member
    Shocking! Here are some other Business 101 shocking facts  -  I just learned that CBS kept its content away from ABC to lock in viewers! And get this, At Costco, you buy a membership and only members can shop there. Totally locked in. AND insurance companies look at the costs and likely hood of event to decide on premiums, for instance what it costs you to get coverage for windshield repair, they decide that cost on the likelihood of it happening and the how much it costs to do the repair! 

    The list is long. I even heard that Netflix sells a membership and you can't watch what they make unless you 'buy in' to their entertainment eco-system!

    And I went to buy a new Subaru. Guess what. The Ford dealership doesn't sell them ! Totally locked out of that market!

    Idiots are astounded at how the world operates.
    You have misinterpreted the role of lock in.

    Apple didn't want to lock you into iMessage but into the iOS ecosystem itself. That would mean, in your analogies at least, that once inside Costco for example, you would find it very inconvenient to get out.

    Another interpretation would be that once you have your Costco membership, you are also free to join other membership schemes at no added inconvenience to you.

    Clearly that does not equate well to phone platforms as very few people can afford or would want to run two daily drivers on different platforms.

    They are very different situations. 
  • Reply 72 of 97
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    Like everyone else said: What’s surprising about this? Isn’t every company board of directors pushing for exactly this kind of competitive advantage?

    i seem to remember an article that stated Apple had tried to sell iMessage to the cell phone companies as a new standard. I thought, when reading that, “they should have taken the offer”. Now even more so.

    i wish Apple would make iMessage another iCloud.com feature so my non-Mac-using friends who don’t like tapping on an iPhone all day would be more inclined to message me that way. I hate SMS. Messages larger than 160 characters come broken up into chunks that are in the wrong order. Sometimes shorter messages come broken up and mixed out of order too. The media support sucks, too, in SMS/MMS.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 73 of 97
    The only reason I have WhatsApp is to receive messages from my friends and family that are stuck on Android and set up WhatsApp groups. 
    If iMessage was available on Android then I’d be able to get rid of WhatsApp. 
    iMessage isn’t the reason people stay with Apple (or even come to Apple). There would be no one jumping ship if they released an Android version. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 74 of 97
    y2any2an Posts: 124member
    applguy said:
    Must be the same reason Final Cut Pro is only available on Mac. /s

  • Reply 75 of 97
    y2any2an Posts: 124member
    Further details from the Epic Games court filings cite Apple executives saying they could have made an Android version of iMessage, but it would "hurt us more than help us."

    Apple Messages
    Apple Messages


    Included in Epic Games's "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" court submission ahead of its trial with Apple, is a series of claims that Apple deliberately locks users into its ecosystem. Quoting executives Eddy Cue, Phil Schiller, and Craig Federighi, the "Fortnite" developer says Apple intended to prevent users switching to Android.

    "[Apple] could have made a version on Android that worked with iOS," Eddy Cue is quoted as saying. "[There could] have been cross-compatibility with the iOS platform so that users of both platforms would have been able to exchange messages with one another seamlessly."

    According to Epic Games, both Federighi and Schiller blocked the creation of an Android version of iMessage. "[Moving] iMessage to Android will hurt us more than help us," Schiller is reported to have said.

    Epic also quotes a 2016 email from a former Apple employee. Saying "the #1 most difficult [reason] to leave the Apple universe app is iMessage," the ex-employee added that "iMessage amounts to serious lock-in."

    Epic Games's court submissions concentrate on establishing that Apple's curation of the App Store, and subsequent rejection of certain apps, is a business decision rather than a security one.

    Despite the claims in Epic's filings, Apple has previously been reported to be considering iMessage on Android, and also tried to create a more universal standard. Following a debunked 2016 rumor that Apple was developing an Android app, reports circulated that the company had at least genuinely made mockups for internal discussion.

    Separately, Scott Forstall revealed in 2018 that Apple had originally wanted iMessage to be a more universal standard. Without specifying when the discussions took place, he said that Apple had talked at length with carriers.

    "We approached the carriers to pursue adding features to the existing texting systems and removing the additional customer costs," he said. "For various reasons, from the difficulty of extending the existing standards, to challenges with interoperability between texting systems and carriers, to the desire of carriers to protect a significant revenue stream, these explorations didn't pan out."


    Stay on top of all Apple news right from your HomePod. Say, "Hey, Siri, play AppleInsider," and you'll get latest AppleInsider Podcast. Or ask your HomePod mini for "AppleInsider Daily" instead and you'll hear a fast update direct from our news team. And, if you're interested in Apple-centric home automation, say "Hey, Siri, play HomeKit Insider," and you'll be listening to our newest specialized podcast in moments.

  • Reply 76 of 97
    y2any2an Posts: 124member
    Another bad headline, AI. They didn’t keep anything off (meaning: blocked). They just saw no business value to them in porting it to Android. A world of difference. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 77 of 97
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,919member
    cloudguy said:
    Beats said:
    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 guess that proves his point about disassociated arguments.
    Both initial product designs & court transcripts show Andy Reuben never had a clue how to approach the UI paradigm until after Apple released the iPhone with it’s NextStep/OSX ‘column view’ lateral drill-down.
    The blatant copying was bad but for me it was Android’s recreation of all the flaws of PCs (user file system management/external storage, unconstrained multi-tasking, free-form windowing, desperate functional bloat) that was disappointing. Android’s cheap sycophantic popularity & gimmicks in lieu of genuine innovation really dragged mobile computing back. The PC should be near-dead by now but Android’s market hijack is single-handedly responsible for that evolutionary failure.
    watto_cobratmay
  • Reply 78 of 97
    People on Android wound never use iMessage, anyway it would just get spammed with bad reviews like every other Apple app on Android. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 79 of 97
    genovellegenovelle Posts: 1,379member
    cloudguy said:
    elijahg said:
    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.
    It’s completely illogical for a company to invest money into developing an Android App that’s designed to do the opposite of the reason you developed the App in the first place. It’s also similar to how Google kept major features in maps from the iPhone even though Apple paid millions helping them develop the app the Google turned and used it to compete against them with turn by turn. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 80 of 97
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,606member
    avon b7 said:
    Shocking! Here are some other Business 101 shocking facts  -  I just learned that CBS kept its content away from ABC to lock in viewers! And get this, At Costco, you buy a membership and only members can shop there. Totally locked in. AND insurance companies look at the costs and likely hood of event to decide on premiums, for instance what it costs you to get coverage for windshield repair, they decide that cost on the likelihood of it happening and the how much it costs to do the repair! 

    The list is long. I even heard that Netflix sells a membership and you can't watch what they make unless you 'buy in' to their entertainment eco-system!

    And I went to buy a new Subaru. Guess what. The Ford dealership doesn't sell them ! Totally locked out of that market!

    Idiots are astounded at how the world operates.
    You have misinterpreted the role of lock in.

    Apple didn't want to lock you into iMessage but into the iOS ecosystem itself. That would mean, in your analogies at least, that once inside Costco for example, you would find it very inconvenient to get out.

    Another interpretation would be that once you have your Costco membership, you are also free to join other membership schemes at no added inconvenience to you.

    Clearly that does not equate well to phone platforms as very few people can afford or would want to run two daily drivers on different platforms.

    They are very different situations. 
    It is you that have misinterpreted the role of a lock in. The whole .... give away the razor and sell the blades ...... is based on a "lock in". 

    iMessage is not the only text messaging app available for iOS users. Just because an iOS user uses iMessage, it doesn't mean that they can't use any other messaging app. It cost nothing to use one of the other more popular texting apps. iOS users are not forced to use iMessage. iOS is not a monopoly. iMessage is not a monopoly on iOS. iOS users do not have to buy an Android device or carry devices for two platforms, in order to text Android users. So tell us how exactly is iMessage a lock in that should be a concern for Apple under anti-trust? Just because they might have used the term "lock in" in an internal meeting? Even if they did, iMessage is no more a "lock in" than 1000's of other "lock ins" that are being used by other companies. And don't tell use that ..... that's for the investigators to determine. Different countries might see it differently and  Apple is being looked at under a microscope.  The is a cop-out reply.  

    I have maybe half a dozen Dewalt 18v cordless tools and nearly a dozen 18v batteries for them. If I need a cordless angle grinder, I will only be looking at a Dewalt. Why? Because the nearly dozen Dewalt batteries I have do not fit a Milwaukee or Makita or Bosch or any other makers cordless tool for that matter. (BTW- Dewalt batteries do fit some Black and Decker cordless tools because Dewalt is owned by Black and Decker.) Batteries for cordless tools are not cheap. At least not the good ones. They are a "lock in". It would be much more expensive and inconvenient for me to buy another brand angle grinder, plus several batteries and the charger, than it would for me to just buy the more expensive Dewalt angle grinder without batteries and charger. I don't want to be carrying two different type of batteries and chargers with me, when I'm helping a friend do some remodeling. Does that mean that Dewalt should be investigated under anti-trust for their cordless tool batteries being a "lock in", because they only work on Dewalt cordless tools?  
    watto_cobraGeorgeBMactmayshamino
Sign In or Register to comment.