Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

DakotaGuy

macrumors 601
Jan 14, 2002
4,229
3,792
South Dakota, USA
They sure have. The is no law saying Apple should give scrap about Android users. The nanny state is going to force their will on businesses.
However the inclusion of RCS also benefits iPhone users. I guess there might be a few people that refuse to text someone that has an Android phone, but most people communicate with users of both platforms. Apple is not going to make an iMessage app for Android ever. Their solution will be RCS and that's fine with me.
 

ThailandToo

macrumors 6502
Apr 18, 2022
441
831
Splitting up Apple and Google and creating several separate companies would make things even worse. The integration that both companies have worked on to improve the user experience would all be broken up.
I don’t think that’s true, as companies would work together to each provide some way to be useful to people.

Realistically, it would be far better for everyone if these mega-corporations didn’t exist. They destroy all the little guys, steal their intellectual property, and bully them around.

Technology can be good when interoperability is built around an open ecosystem that allows new companies to find ways to operate within a system. We see this with developers creating new apps. We see it with manufacturers creating better keyboards, cases and etc.

Apple always complained that some patents it had to pay to use FRAND - fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory weren’t fair or reasonable. That’s exactly what happens when your company creates the system that becomes the standard. Apple has done it with iMessages for sure. It’s a standard. It has stolen IP straight from developers. Many of the times they know they can outspend on legal and just fend off any lawsuits.

Lots of smaller companies add value to society in ways that these gigantic companies cannot. When a small company can find a way to add value, it creates growth and opportunity. When Apple creates something new, it forces users to buy a new version of the product that has the software, hardware and has built the whole pipeline. The “sticky” term truly means anticompetitive in this case.

I love a lot of what Apple provides, but I think so many people are defending Apple like it cares about them and is their best friend. That’s what Apple has done so well. Make people depend on it and spend so much money on marketing to make Apple look like a good entity. Just see what Tim really does to get his $100m in stock grants annually, anything necessary. Bully a small company trying to offer a solution to those who aren’t going to buy an iPhone and who want to use something that should be considered a standard at this point.
 

farmboy

macrumors 65816
Nov 26, 2003
1,307
488
Minnesota
Apple acts like a grade-school bully. In the end, I think Apple’s anticompetitive behavior will end up leading to parts of it being broken up. Remember when Microsoft was split up over browser influence? Companies have been allowed to grow into these giant anticompetitive forces now that destroy all competition, steal IP and even steal from its own developers! Really want Apple to be investigated and things to change.

It would be better for all of us. I love a lot of Apple things, but I hate the ecosystem that acts like a monopoly. And the vertical integration of the entire pipeline looks like a monopoly.

My perfect iPhone would be a Galaxy Ultra operating on an A17 Pro with iOS running.

My perfect computer would be an iPad running MacOS or a Thinkpad running MacOS. I don’t think companies should be forced to sell other companies products but I do think the vast size of Apple is good for nobody except maybe Tim and the top 1% of shareholders.

If Apple was split into six or seven companies, they would all be better. And interoperability would be a feature among all devices. Instead of a walled garden approach. It’s sticky as investors say, but it’s also anticompetitive. Investors will keep investing in these companies with monopolistic practices until someone puts an end to it. Build it all in America and then it at least builds up our economy. But there is just no advantage right now to allowing one company to control so much.
Microsoft WAS NOT SPLIT UP; that ruling was overturned.

If Apple were split into several companies the interoperability would be virtually impossible for legal reasons alone, because they would required to act individually as separate companies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DakotaGuy

Biro

macrumors 6502a
Jan 11, 2012
604
959
Apple should invest their profits from hardware sales into their software instead of dividends to investors.
Apple’s profits pay for the services Apple customers don’t have to subscribe to - like iMessage and iCloud.
 

DakotaGuy

macrumors 601
Jan 14, 2002
4,229
3,792
South Dakota, USA
I don’t think that’s true, as companies would work together to each provide some way to be useful to people.

Realistically, it would be far better for everyone if these mega-corporations didn’t exist. They destroy all the little guys, steal their intellectual property, and bully them around.

Technology can be good when interoperability is built around an open ecosystem that allows new companies to find ways to operate within a system. We see this with developers creating new apps. We see it with manufacturers creating better keyboards, cases and etc.

Apple always complained that some patents it had to pay to use FRAND - fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory weren’t fair or reasonable. That’s exactly what happens when your company creates the system that becomes the standard. Apple has done it with iMessages for sure. It’s a standard. It has stolen IP straight from developers. Many of the times they know they can outspend on legal and just fend off any lawsuits.

Lots of smaller companies add value to society in ways that these gigantic companies cannot. When a small company can find a way to add value, it creates growth and opportunity. When Apple creates something new, it forces users to buy a new version of the product that has the software, hardware and has built the whole pipeline. The “sticky” term truly means anticompetitive in this case.

I love a lot of what Apple provides, but I think so many people are defending Apple like it cares about them and is their best friend. That’s what Apple has done so well. Make people depend on it and spend so much money on marketing to make Apple look like a good entity. Just see what Tim really does to get his $100m in stock grants annually, anything necessary. Bully a small company trying to offer a solution to those who aren’t going to buy an iPhone and who want to use something that should be considered a standard at this point.
If someone was to come and steal something of mine I should just let them have it? This company is attempting to steal a service ran by Apple Inc. Protecting your property from thieves is not being a bully. I actually have an Android phone. I wish I had better features and an experience when I text an iPhone, but Apple is working on that solution and it's an open standard called RCS. It's not by stealing a companies proprietary system for free. I'm on Apple's side here. Not because they are a big corporation, but because we have laws and they should be followed. The DoJ is completely backwards on this. They should be investigating Beeper for stealing from Apple.

Corporate break-ups don't work anyhow. Remember Ma Bell? The original AT&T. It was all broken up into about a dozen different companies in 1984 and today it's all pretty much back together with the "new" AT&T and Verizon. I guess there is Lumen Technologies in there too, but 90% of Ma Bell is back under two corporations.

What you want would not improve technology. Having hundreds of little companies all trying to run their own stuff would not make things better for us in the tech age. I've used software and products from these small little companies you want and I'm telling you 95% of the time... heck maybe 99.9% of the time their products are inferior to what Apple, Google and Microsoft have available. They just don't have the resources or integration to build a piece of quality hardware or software.
 

I7guy

macrumors Nehalem
Nov 30, 2013
34,334
24,079
Gotta be in it to win it
Both Apple and Google should be split up.
No they shouldn’t. If you want a glimpse of how that turned out see the AT&T breakup which ultimately resulted in an oligopoly and on the forecastle the US is squarely in the middle of the pack.

AT&T was innovative - not so much for Tmo or att or vzw.
Will it actually happen? Probably not. It's going to be especially unlikely after Republicans sweep in 2024 due to the Democrats' usual mishandling of issues like the Israel-Hamas war and alienating their own voters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DakotaGuy

TEG

macrumors 604
Jan 21, 2002
6,622
172
Langley, Washington
Why should a private messaging service have to be interoperable with any other, or allow any other service to interface with theirs? The entire point of iMessage (along with literally every other messaging platform), is that it is separate from SMS, private, and only authorized software and users are allowed to use it. How is iMessage any different?
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
14,756
21,449
There’s nothing to investigate here unless you’re a lobbyist feeding lies of omission to a technically illiterate octogenarian congressperson/senator on behalf of a company with an agenda.

Make a stupid business model based on a a security lapse…lose that business when it gets fixed. Literally nothing else to say here. Beeper was not a competitor, it was a piggyback ride of a company.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Biro and bcortens

DakotaGuy

macrumors 601
Jan 14, 2002
4,229
3,792
South Dakota, USA
There’s nothing to investigate here unless you’re a lobbyist feeding lies of omission to a technically illiterate octogenarian congressperson/senator on behalf of a company with an agenda.

Make a stupid business model based on a a security lapse…lose that business when it gets fixed. Literally nothing else to say here. Beeper was not a competitor, it was a piggyback ride of a company.
Well there definitely a group in D.C. these days that are anti-capitalist and feel that companies like Apple should just "give" itself away for the greater good. Their dream is everyone carries the same US Govt sourced phone ran on one government owned network. I've seen calls around here for Apple to be nationalized so don't think there aren't a lot of people with extremest views like that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bcortens

1129846

Cancelled
Mar 25, 2021
528
988
What the heck are you going on about? You act like Android users can't send a text message to an iPhone user. The government has somehow been convinced that at its core, iMessage is something completely different than run-of-the-mill text messaging.

Any talk of E2EE is hogwash because encryption is a personal choice... one that I suspect 95% of smartphone users couldn't care less about.

We're talking about colored bubbles here. That's all this is about in the end.

Sending sms from android to iPhone has a long list of issues. Big time when you drop to mms. Apple quality drop in mms is a a lot and well below what mms support. In that department Apple has intentionally caused a poorer user experience
 

BuffaloTF

macrumors 68000
Jun 10, 2008
1,772
2,234
It’s… a Closed User Group. This shouldn’t even see the light of day in any courtroom.
 

InvertedGoldfish

Suspended
Jun 28, 2023
468
405
Sounds like Apple didn’t want their iMessage to be corrupted with less secure Google phones, seeing this got the government in a tizzy I’d wager Apple was on the right track preventing this


My vote is for Apple on this one
 

macfacts

macrumors 601
Oct 7, 2012
4,841
5,675
Cybertron
Beeper is now open source, who is apple going to sue now? Haha and you can now see it does nothing to the encryption, if the encryption is broken, that's on apple
 

redheeler

macrumors G3
Oct 17, 2014
8,423
8,845
Colorado, USA
No they shouldn’t. If you want a glimpse of how that turned out see the AT&T breakup which ultimately resulted in an oligopoly and on the forecastle the US is squarely in the middle of the pack.

AT&T was innovative - not so much for Tmo or att or vzw.
So you’re saying you only want a single cell service carrier in the US and that’s it? Imagine the crappy service and high prices that one carrier could get away with. Who’s to say that modern cell phones would even exist as we know them without the split-up of Bell.
 

ozaz

macrumors 68000
Feb 27, 2011
1,609
564
Why should a private messaging service have to be interoperable with any other, or allow any other service to interface with theirs? The entire point of iMessage (along with literally every other messaging platform), is that it is separate from SMS, private, and only authorized software and users are allowed to use it. How is iMessage any different?

Except Apple didn't build iMessage to be a completely closed service separate from SMS. They built it to interoperate with SMS (and don't allow anyone else to do the same). This makes it unique on iOS. The problem is most people now expect better than SMS for standard messaging (and the solution to facilitate this cross-platform is available in RCS).

If Apple had chosen to build iMessage as a service that did not interoperate with SMS (i.e. if it was equivalent in this way to services like WhatsApp, FB Messenger etc) then I think your argument would be completely valid.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ThailandToo

ThailandToo

macrumors 6502
Apr 18, 2022
441
831
So you’re saying you only want a single cell service carrier in the US and that’s it? Imagine the crappy service and high prices that one carrier could get away with. Who’s to say that modern cell phones would even exist as we know them without the split-up of Bell.
Competition is what leads to better products, services and lower costs. Apple Tax is real because they effectively have an anticompetitive megacorporation that acts like a monopoly vertically integrating the whole system from base hardware all the way to the end user product and software included. They lock out everyone and have a walled garden that is sticky. That word sticky is a word investors mean when they imply it’s a monopoly that’s got no real competition due to its business model and gigantic size for economies of scale and ability to buy out or eliminate competition by stealing like AAPL does to its developers.

This whole Beeper software is the tip of the iceberg that shows exactly what Apple does when AAPL can’t make every penny of the system. The developers have been screwed from the beginning and Apple brags about it but go talk with any developer and ask them what they think. How about those who have had their software apps ripped off and integrated right into iOS for later releases.

Apple losing will be the sign of consumers winning. And it would lead to competition and interoperability of software and services. That would be better for consumers. I really don’t understand all these people defending AAPL and Tim Cook like he gives two cents about them. All he cares about is money. He’s a power-driven maniac. If he cared about the environment, they wouldn’t make Mac’s they know will be obsolete due to the constraint or bottleneck of the RAM. Apple has done it with so many of its products and that’s its business model/strategy to force people to keep buying more and more products.

Apple is as anticompetitive as a company can possibly be without truly being a de facto monopoly.
 
  • Disagree
  • Like
Reactions: redheeler and I7guy

I7guy

macrumors Nehalem
Nov 30, 2013
34,334
24,079
Gotta be in it to win it
So you’re saying you only want a single cell service carrier in the US and that’s it? Imagine the crappy service and high prices that one carrier could get away with. Who’s to say that modern cell phones would even exist as we know them without the split-up of Bell.
No you’re saying that. I’m saying the break up of apple is bad as you have suggested for the reasons I mentioned. I suppose three non innovative companies who are competitors is better than one highly innovative company.
 

I7guy

macrumors Nehalem
Nov 30, 2013
34,334
24,079
Gotta be in it to win it
Competition is what leads to better products, services and lower costs.
Yes. Honest competition. Not competition borne by regulation.
Apple Tax is real because they effectively have an anticompetitive megacorporation
No they don't.
hat acts like a monopoly vertically integrating the whole system from base hardware all the way to the end user product and software included.
Patently false. There are other companies that have a vertically integrated monopoly. That's exactly what companies do.
They lock out everyone and have a walled garden that is sticky.
The walled garden is not sticky that's a myth.
That word sticky is a word investors mean when they imply it’s a monopoly that’s got no real competition due to its business model and gigantic size for economies of scale and ability to buy out or eliminate competition by stealing like AAPL does to its developers.
I'm sticky to AAPL simply because they have, imo, the best products, the best services etc.
This whole Beeper software is the tip of the iceberg that shows exactly what Apple does when AAPL can’t make every penny of the system.
Yes, it shows that some American politicans need to be recalled and replaced with those who value the American system.
The developers have been screwed from the beginning and Apple brags about it but go talk with any developer and ask them what they think. How about those who have had their software apps ripped off and integrated right into iOS for later releases.
The above is pure b/s.
Apple losing will be the sign of consumers winning.
There is such a thing as a lose/lose proposition. So I think the above is wrong.
And it would lead to competition and interoperability of software and services.
You want Apple to be Android II. Many fans of Apple do not want that to happen.
That would be better for consumers.
No it won't
I really don’t understand all these people defending AAPL and Tim Cook
I don't understand those criticizing Tim Cook and AAPL. A beloved Amercan company that has great roots and produces products people open their wallet for.
like he gives two cents about them.
Tell me one CEO of a fortune, for profit company that gives "two cents" about their customers.
All he cares about is money. He’s a power-driven maniac.
That's why AAPL is the great company today and hundreds of millions of people, buy their products and subscribe to their services.
If he cared about the environment, they wouldn’t make Mac’s they know will be obsolete due to the constraint or bottleneck of the RAM.
Starting a criticism with "if", shows it's not any real criticism.
Apple has done it with so many of its products and that’s its business model/strategy to force people to keep buying more and more products.
Force people? That is an ignorant thing to say. You can't force people to do what they don't want. Ask Blackberry.
Apple is as anticompetitive as a company can possibly be without truly being a de facto monopoly.
It's AAPLs right to operate within the law and it's your right not to buy any of their products for any reason of your choosing including but not limited to:
1. you don't like the ceo
2. you don't like the products
3. you think they are a anticompetitive monopolist and want to support the competition
4. and on and on and on.
 
Last edited:

ozaz

macrumors 68000
Feb 27, 2011
1,609
564
I‘m honestly surprised to see so many siding against Apple here. These guys are basically hacking into Apple‘s service.

Criticism of Apple in their approach to messaging interoperability does not equal approval of Beeper.
 

InvertedGoldfish

Suspended
Jun 28, 2023
468
405
No you’re saying that. I’m saying the break up of apple is bad as you have suggested for the reasons I mentioned. I suppose three non innovative companies who are competitors is better than one highly innovative company.
Indeed

Almost like something out of atlas shrugged
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.