They want to charge for someone else's free service, screw beeper
I generally agree, but I'm not sure how to really think about the following: that Apple should allow third party SMS/RCS apps. Ok, sure. But what about the phone app? Should Apple also allow another phone "app" to operate on iPhone so that if I don't like Apple's version I can use another?
At what point is the thing (phone) the thing itself versus an app? In other words, if we are going to say the app for SMS is just another app, then so too is the phone, no?
Correct. Breaking EULA by reverse-engineering iMessages… stealing intellectual property… Now criminals want to be rewarded?uhh... Beeper is essentially committing theft by trying to access private servers without proper authentication. Why is Apple being investigated?
Because as Phil Collins said and Disturbed reaffirmed: This is the Land of Confusion.uhh... Beeper is essentially committing theft by trying to access private servers without proper authentication. Why is Apple being investigated?
An alternative option if Apple wanted iMessage to compete on a level playing field with other data-based messaging networks like WhatsApp (obviously they don't) is to uncouple iMessage from SMS messaging.
I actually don't think they should do this (I think Apple adding RCS to Messages is the best way forward for better interoperability), but unless other apps are allowed to handle SMS Apple and others shouldn't argue that WhatsApp etc represent equivalent alternatives to iMessage.
Yes, they now want to do $omethingApple walked right into it. Sadly, nothing will come of it (unlike in the EU) but funny now the FTC wants to do something.
You can think that both the EU and US are being ridiculous.For all those people always complaining about the EU… here you have US authorities investigating whether a company should be allowed unauthorised access to private servers and services of another company.
Ridiculous. Feast on that.
Maybe they can useTim Apple needs to have his Android team publish an official iMessages app for that platform. Restricting people who used Android phones from being able to communicate is a form of discrimination.
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.
Again these are not examples of iMessage being exclusive to iOS that are the problem.
There is only 1 example you provided that is an issue isolated to iMessage itself (that Apple should be required to ensure never happens again) and that is the issue of lost messages after opting out.
The other issues are again, not about iMessage the protocol/service but about Apple's abuse of the default messaging app and the fact that they prevent any other apps from handling the SMS functions.
Tim Apple needs to have his Android team publish an official iMessages app for that platform. Restricting people who used Android phones from being able to communicate is a form of discrimination.
Again these are not examples of iMessage being exclusive to iOS that are the problem.
There is only 1 example you provided that is an issue isolated to iMessage itself (that Apple should be required to ensure never happens again) and that is the issue of lost messages after opting out.
The other issues are again, not about iMessage the protocol/service but about Apple's abuse of the default messaging app and the fact that they prevent any other apps from handling the SMS functions.
That... doesn't make any sense. You're just minimizing the actual situation to "a blue bubble" when there's a lot more to it.It's a blue bubble. Zero reason this should be a Government inquiry.
Apple should release iMessage as an app and require a paid iCloud subscription for those that want to use the service.
You realize that's a problem and bad for consumers, right? Forcing Apple to change that will also force those other companies to open up lest they want the same problemsIf I used Facebook Messenger for years, and decided to stop using it, all messages are "lost".
If I used WhatsApp for years, and decided to stop using it, all messages are "lost".
If I used Skype for years, and decided to stop using it, all messages are "lost".
etc. etc.
I do agree that it's time to allow users to pick a new default cellular Messaging app, though. They've done that with other apps... now time for messages.
If I used Facebook Messenger for years, and decided to stop using it, all messages are "lost".
If I used WhatsApp for years, and decided to stop using it, all messages are "lost".
If I used Skype for years, and decided to stop using it, all messages are "lost".
etc. etc.
I do agree that it's time to allow users to pick a new default cellular Messaging app, though. They've done that with other apps... now time for messages.
But the part you are missing or avoid is iMessage in itself may of gotten to intertwined with the other lock outs so nothing can get a foothold any longer.
Hence those other defaults and lock outs granted iMessage as a system to much power and help unwind it have to open it up.
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.
Requiring Apple to allow interoperablity protocol would be a fine solution. The net effect is it would open things up.So by abusing their opt-in by default and default app positioning iMessage became popular, therefore we need to require iMessage to become an open protocol?
You're still targeting the wrong thing, by making iMessage the standard protocol Apple would become more powerful not less.
The EU in targeting iMessage (though Apple managed to skate on it) was not requiring Apple bring iMessage to android or open the iMessage protocol itself, they wanted Apple's messaging system to support an interoperable protocol with other messaging services. That isn't the same thing at all.
If I were Tim Cook, I'd hold a summit and tell the world that either these corrupt, fill-in-the-blank-with-your-favorite-insult politicians back off, or Apple will shutter forever and people can make do with Windows and Samsung for the rest of all humanity. I'd spell it out, bit by bit, so everyone and their uncle could see what is really happening here, and then I'd let the public make their decision. Support this consorted assignation attempt based on corruption and greed, or support Apple.