Department of Justice and FTC Looking Into Beeper iMessage Controversy

[TruthWatcher412]

For those who are on the side of Apple and wants to keep iMessage on their iPhones... need to understand that allowing iMessage on Android benefits you (shocker!).

You won't have to be concerned about "oh, they have an Android... I don't care to message them." Look at the data from teenagers and especially in the dating world. It removes that barrier. And I know you might be wondering... well, there's plenty of other messaging platforms to exchange messages with for Android users.

But the issue is that most iPhone users IN THE US... gravitate toward iMessage. If we (in the states) can agree to move to a cross-platform messaging app... this whole situation would be mute.

I’m personally fine with iMessage being added to Android, if Apple chooses to do so. But this is like the government telling Xbox they have to put gamepass on PlayStation or Netflix they have to put their created shows on a competitor’s service. Beeper was using a workaround to get unauthorized access to iMessage servers without Apple’s consent. If I did that to access a company’s servers I’d be arrested for cyber crimes and sued by the company. If and when Apple creates an Android iMessage app or (even less likely) an api for developers to access iMessage, no one should be able to access iMessage (or any other Apple service) without their consent.

Plus, Apple allows me to install a plethora of other messaging apps if I want to use non-SMS with Android. If they blocked/removed every third party app from the App Store and forced you to only use iMessage/SMS then I’d say that’s anticompetitive.

 

[toobravetosave]

Whatsapp, Facebook Messenger. I'm sure there are plenty more.

apple does not let 3rd party apps control texting

 

[Bearxor]

Whatsapp, Facebook Messenger. I'm sure there are plenty more.

These are messaging apps, not texting apps.

Which means on an iPhone you have to split your communication. The Apple messaging app does SMS and iMessage.

Apple should allow apps on the device to take over SMS functionality so that users have a choice.

 

[bcortens]

These are messaging apps, not texting apps.

Which means on an iPhone you have to split your communication. The Apple messaging app does SMS and iMessage.

Apple should allow apps on the device to take over SMS functionality so that users have a choice.

This is more of an interoperability thing, not just Apple but all messaging app should have a universal interoperable fallback system (sms/rcs).

 

[Ludatyk]

If companies are required to give away the goods once a product or service they create becomes too popular, then a) what is their incentive to develop the products and services in the first place, and b) what is the incentive for competitors or would-be competitors to create better products and services when they can just ride on the investments of other companies instead? How do customers benefit when companies are punished for creating something they—the customers—like?

Because customers benefit particularly iPhone and Android users with having a secure and encrypted messaging platform (along with full-resolution media messages).

 

[DailySlow]

While I generally agree that Apple is behaving badly, Beeper is a bad example of it, there is no law nor any real justification that requires companies that design a messaging protocol allow any other company to integrate that protocol into their own product. This is like saying Facebook should open up the messenger and WhatsApp protocols to let anyone build an app around them.

Apple as 6 or 7 companies would not be better, they would be worse at almost everything, integration gives Apple the ability to tailor their software to their hardware.

There are a few areas where Apple's push for service revenue is compromising quality:
I think Apple's foray's into streaming television and other services have been a bad move as they are leading to compromised app experiences, look at music, the TV app, without a subscription to see how bad these apps have become and how much Apple wants to chase that subscription service revenue instead of crafting a great product.

Paid search results in the App Store is obviously compromising quality search results.

The App Store commission creates perverse incentives around App Store policies encouraging scummy gambling game practices which Apple has not seen fit to discourage because they make so much money.

Agree to a point breakup would be a catastrophe – and a wrong. Apple was never an "AT&T" official infrastructure type utility and hopefully forever remains an "opt-in" customer driven operation. AT&T breakup was a mess that was maybe 50% effective in its stated aims. Hear me Canada???

 

[Bearxor]

This is more of an interoperability thing, not just Apple but all messaging app should have a universal interoperable fallback system (sms/rcs).

On android, they can. Apple prohibits this.

It’s why Google hasn’t just made an RCS client for iPhone.

 

[Ludatyk]

Plus, Apple allows me to install a plethora of other messaging apps if I want to use non-SMS with Android. If they blocked/removed every third party app from the App Store and forced you to only use iMessage/SMS then I’d say that’s anticompetitive.

But that's where the anti-competitive comes into question.

iMessage is tied to SMS... no other app has access to this. So, being in the US... where majority of people use SMS and the only app that has access to it is Apple Messages app. Then, of course... most iPhone users will undoubtedly go with Apple Messages app.

It would be different if Apple created another Apple Messages app... not tied to SMS. So, hypothetically speaking on the iPhone... it would be an SMS app along with a Message app (specifically for iMessage).

 

[bousozoku]

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.

If Apple was forced to allow its operating systems to run on other hardware, they'd be out of business. They are a hardware company.

During the time of Mac clones, they were almost out of business.

Should they work better with Android, Windows, and Linux? Yes, they should. However, their vision is likely to have control over your house and your vehicle, so that they're everywhere in your life.

 

[bousozoku]

On android, they can. Apple prohibits this.

It’s why Google hasn’t just made an RCS client for iPhone.

I miss iChat.

 

[Apple Fan 2008]

Apperantly it's a crime for Apple to keep their own messaging app on their own devices.

 

[usmaak]

I’ll admit only a basic understanding of these types of laws, but I don’t see how a company protecting its intellectual property is in the wrong. Shutting down what is basically a hacker trying to break into a closed system owned by any company seems like the right thing to do.

 

[MNGR]

Yeah nothing's gonna come of this. The FTC has been a joke under Lina Khan as evident from how they fumbled the Apple vs Epic appeal, fumbled blocking Meta's acquisition of VR fitness app Supernatural, and fumbled tremendously at trying to stop Microsoft from buying Activision. She has no legal grounds and has been just wasting bureau funds on lawsuits on Big Tech just to have those cases on her resume, even if they're big failures.

I fully expect the Biden Administration to decide that Apple should not be allowed and they will try to ban all imports.
And I personally do not agree with the decision to forbid the importation of Apple Watches. (What would they have done if Apple was making them in the US?)

 

[jimothyGator]

Because customers benefit particularly iPhone and Android users with having a secure and encrypted messaging platform (along with full-resolution media messages).

Fortunately for customers, they've got several, third-party choices.

And some of those choices, it's possible, might never have been created or become popular if iMessages were already available on Android: if a cross platforming messaging platform from a dominate player (Apple) existed, then alternatives would face a tougher time entering the market.

And then we'd have the DoJ going after Apple for the opposite reason: They'd claim that Apple has not only a "monopoly" on iOS, but is dominant on Android as well! People like Elizabeth Warren would call for iMessage to be broken off from Apple, and some people on this forum would support this position and accuse people (like me) who want government to butt out of being shills for Apple*.

In other words, nothing would change, and Apple and other successful, popular businesses will be damned no matter what.

* Mr. Cook, if you're reading this, I'll gladly accept a check in any amount you see fit. Until then, I guess I'll keep expressing my opinion for free.

 

[lazyrighteye]

They have no obligation to support android and they are adding RCS next year.

Exactly. Topic over. Thread closed. Jesus...

 

[Premium1]

And they are changing that next year.

Yes they are implementing it due to the EU pressure. Funny how that works.

 

[DarthDon]

Now they are really exaggerating. iMessage is a product for Apple devices to communicate with each other. Nothing more, nothing less. is every refrigerator manufacturer now suing Apple for access to iMessage?

 

[bcortens]

On android, they can. Apple prohibits this.

It’s why Google hasn’t just made an RCS client for iPhone.

And that is why I think the existing Beeper mini stuff doesn’t make sense.

Apple should be required to allow third party SMS or RCS clients and all messaging clients should be required to support SMS/RCS fallback for users who aren’t subscribed to their service.

Edit: all messaging apps supporting SMS/RCS should help satisfy the the EU requirement for interoperability while still allowing each service to add differentiating features and UX design

 

[bcortens]

But that's where the anti-competitive comes into question.

iMessage is tied to SMS... no other app has access to this. So, being in the US... where majority of people use SMS and the only app that has access to it is Apple Messages app. Then, of course... most iPhone users will undoubtedly go with Apple Messages app.

It would be different if Apple created another Apple Messages app... not tied to SMS. So, hypothetically speaking on the iPhone... it would be an SMS app along with a Message app (specifically for iMessage).

How would Apple splitting up sms from iMessage make other messaging apps more competitive? The issue is not that SMS and iMessage are in a single app but that only Apple can make an SMS app.

 

[rp2011]

Of course no one wants monopolies or unfair trade practices but this is just insane. Clueless government officials looking for easy targets to waste their time on. With so many messaging apps and Apple being far from a monopoly no one is being forced to use an iPhone or is it detrimental for anyone not to use an iPhone. Just stupidity run amok.

 

[Dylan33x]

For those who are on the side of Apple and wants to keep iMessage on their iPhones... need to understand that allowing iMessage on Android benefits you (shocker!).

You won't have to be concerned about "oh, they have an Android... I don't care to message them." Look at the data from teenagers and especially in the dating world. It removes that barrier. And I know you might be wondering... well, there's plenty of other messaging platforms to exchange messages with for Android users.

But the issue is that most iPhone users IN THE US... gravitate toward iMessage. If we (in the states) can agree to move to a cross-platform messaging app... this whole situation would be mute.

I see your point, but these conversations are somewhat splitting hairs.

If you wanna message anyone on one app, you have SMS and E-mail. Mission complete.

Other than that, you have a single device that can message anyone using free apps you can install on that single device. There’s not really an upside to this inter-operable dream, than slightly more convenience, at the cost of further centralization. I think we’ve passed the tipping point of that intersection as a whole, arguably.

 

[1129846]

There's nothing anticompetitive about keeping their work on their devices only. Other texting apps exist on iOS. Apple allows that. They aren't allowing others to use THEIR work.

In theory yes but Apple is known to use its vertical integrations to force others out. Apple's raw size makes it near impossible to beat and for even a better mouse trap to break in.

The argument build a better mouse trap is incorrect to begin with. It has to be build a better mouse trap that is better enough to be worth the cost of switching and that is where things get hard. Plus you have to deal with critical mass to get things moving. End of the day it is found first to mass market is better than being the best. It is first to critical mass that wins. Once there you can be much father down on the list in terms of quality and features as the size helps out so much.

Apple in many ways acts a lot like MS did in the 90's that got them under federal oversight for abuse and anti competive behavior (Anti trust)

I am all for Apple and other big players being looked at quite often for anti trust behavior and it should be a regularly assurances with more hammers coming down.

Apple, Google and Amazon all need massive anti trust hammers coming down on them for different reasons and different areas. Apple and Google people see more. Amazon is the real scary one that needs it to come down on AWS. Amazon shopping is not the real threat. AWS is.

 

[Ludatyk]

Fortunately for customers, they've got several, third-party choices.

And some of those choices, it's possible, might never have been created or become popular if iMessages were already available on Android: if a cross platforming messaging platform from a dominate player (Apple) existed, then alternatives would face a tougher time entering the market.

Yes, we have several to choose from. But I think what you are missing here is... this discussion is primarily under the US umbrella.

And Apple was very smart with their approach. Kudos for them taking advantage of how the US exchanged messages. Other countries already adapted (from not using SMS) ... users within the states decided iMessage to be the dominate platform, however... the problem is it's only available for Apple devices.

 

[1129846]

This isn't Apple using their size to put another company out of business; this is them stopping someone from trying to backdoor themselves into a proprietary system.

Whatever your opinion of whether Apple should support iMessage on Android or not, going about it this way was never going to work in the end.

I would say the backdooring part yeah not good but I do think Apple should be looked at for other reason on iMessaging and if it being abused. Beeper just got FTC attention on it but Beeper itself should not be the reason Apple is in trouble. There are a long list of other reason that iMessage and Apple have in anti trust.

 

[bcortens]

I would say the backdooring part yeah not good but I do think Apple should be looked at for other reason on iMessaging and if it being abused. Beeper just got FTC attention on it but Beeper itself should not be the reason Apple is in trouble. There are a long list of other reason that iMessage and Apple have in anti trust.

How can they be abusing iMessaging by not building an app for Android?

You can make the case that by not allowing other apps to build SMS fallback into their apps that they are abusing their position as the default messaging app on iOS to push iMessage but that isn't quite the same thing. That is abusing their position as the default app not iMessage itself.