Lawmakers Express Concern Over Apple's 'Anticompetitive Treatment' of iMessage for Android App

[ozaz]

It's funny that everyone screaming "anti-competitive behavior" completely forget the news from just a few weeks back where Apple said they would implement the RCS messaging standard so that Android and Apple can have a compatible internet messaging protocol... 🤷‍♂️

Which is great, although I doubt Apple really wants to do even this. They're probably doing it now to counter arguments for opening up iMessage (and to counter demand for apps like Beeper). Anyway, its welcome whatever the reason, and I for one prefer this RCS route to interoperability instead of iMessage being made available on Android. But its many months away and we don't know for certain if Apple will stick to their plan of releasing it in 2024, so I expect there will be continued clamour for better interoperability for many months to come.

 

[ozaz]

This is ridiculous. Apple isn’t squashing competition. Any competitor is free to create their own messaging app.

Apple doesn't allow other apps to take on the role of SMS/MMS handler so it's not possible for others to make an app which is integrated with standard text messaging (which is a big part of why iMessage is as frictionless as it is). This doesn't stop apps like WhatsApp existing, but it does effectively prevent anyone making a useful iPhone app to engage in rich communication with default messaging apps on Android (i.e. via RCS). Such an app would need SMS/MMS fallback just like iMessage needs SMS/MMS fallback.

 

[laptech]

If they broke Apple's terms of service - which I assume but don't know - then they would in fact have done something illegal.

Apple's T&C's are meaningless if they contradict the rule of law. Go look at this post

Lawmakers Express Concern Over Apple's 'Anticompetitive Treatment' of iMessage for Android App

I already have. DMCA - Charging a monthly fee was possibly a violation under 1201(a)(1)(c)(ii) (according to my lawyer wife, but that's not a given at all since it applies to copyright), but no encryption, or DRM, was broken or circumvented. CFAA - Beeper didn't/doesn't log in or connect to...

forums.macrumors.com

and if Apple's T&C say's none of the above can be done but they are then the T&C becomes meaningless because a company cannot put into their T&C's conditions that contradict the rule of law because otherwise a court will find the T&C's are invalid.

Unless Apple can find a way that exposes what Beeper did as being illegal then Apple is going to lose here because their actions will be seen as anticompetitive for blocking a company from doing things that are legal. Apple may not like what Beeper has done but if what Beeper has done is considered legal then Apple will just have to mumble and grumble under their breath because there is not a lot they are going to be able to do about it.

 

[I7guy]

Apple's T&C's are meaningless if they contradict the rule of law. Go look at this post

Lawmakers Express Concern Over Apple's 'Anticompetitive Treatment' of iMessage for Android App

I already have. DMCA - Charging a monthly fee was possibly a violation under 1201(a)(1)(c)(ii) (according to my lawyer wife, but that's not a given at all since it applies to copyright), but no encryption, or DRM, was broken or circumvented. CFAA - Beeper didn't/doesn't log in or connect to...

forums.macrumors.com

and if Apple's T&C say's none of the above can be done but they are then the T&C becomes meaningless because a company cannot put into their T&C's conditions that contradict the rule of law because otherwise a court will find the T&C's are invalid.

Unless Apple can find a way that exposes what Beeper did as being illegal then Apple is going to lose here because their actions will be seen as anticompetitive for blocking a company from doing things that are legal.

You would be surprised what may prevail in a court of law. Just because a lawmaker proposes it doesn’t mean it will sail through the courts without a hitch.

 

[canadianreader]

This image is what I like to call "how to destroy your reputation in five seconds." C'mon Craig you were supposed to be the fun one.

I listened in during Craig's testimony during Apple vs Epic and his cross examination he threw the Mac under the bus saying it's not secure like they want it to be, DESPITE CONSTANTLY SAYING DURING APPLE EVENTS AND ADS THAT IT IS

Obligatory:

The way they infantilize their user base. I used to have great respect for that guy not anymore not after that conference which I didn’t know about until late this year. So disappointing.

 

[dannyyankou]

And it's nice to have the option to record ProRes video directly to an SSD from the iPhone. Apple made a big deal about it when they shot their latest event on the iPhone.

Now funny enough, I think that's one of the downsides of the iPhone 15 pro. If you have 512gb or 1tb, you shouldn't need to record to external storage. Apple should trust their customers how to manage storage properly. If I want to record a ProRes video transfer it to a drive later, I should be able to do that.

 

[Michael Scrip]

If you have 512gb or 1tb, you shouldn't need to record to external storage. Apple should trust their customers how to manage storage properly. If I want to record a ProRes video transfer it to a drive later, I should be able to do that.

Yeah I guess it's an artificial limit. You should be able to record 4K60 ProRes internally if you want to.

I still like the USB-C port though. I don't want Lightning or "portless"

 

[Realityck]

In a CBS News interview, Beeper CEO Eric Migicovsky said that he is simply trying to provide a secure service for Android users, and he decried Apple's iMessage monopoly.

I still find this funny. That a third party that is trying to make a android app that can chat with 13 separate well known messaging apps (including encrypted examples) can complain about any of them responding to his actions to create fake credentials is acceptable. As you can see he doesn't even want a iMessage port even. Why because his app is a $2 a month subscription, not free.

This info is from the dev's X posts.

 

[Biro]

Personally, the naivte displayed by those who want Apple to open everything up to everybody just makes me shake my head. And I’m one who calls out Apple on a lot - including soldered SSDs and RAM, the high cost of upgrading those components, the lack of base-level storage and the need to have more bugs worked out of the software before adding features no one is asking for.

But I’m still an Apple customer for reasons that include high-quality hardware and a generally more-secure operating environment. That second reason may go away thanks to the efforts of the clueless and the selfish.

But it’s clear no one is going to convince anyone who doesn’t agree with them to change their mind on this subject. We’ve reached the point where this string has become boring and redundant. So I’ll move along while wishing everyone a happy holiday season. It’ll be interesting to see how this works out for Apple - and those working against them.

 

[Sevendaymelee]

Love how our idiot politicians go after one of their own country's great success stories. You'd think they'd be rooting for Apple to protect its assets, but no. Gotta score points for cable news. Gotta hold onto power, because psychopathy.

 

[Sorinut]

Love how our idiot politicians go after one of their own country's great success stories. You'd think they'd be rooting for Apple to protect its assets, but no. Gotta score points for cable news. Gotta hold onto power, because psychopathy.

Politicians shouldn't be favoring anyone, or any company, when it comes to the law.

They often do, but they shouldn't.

 

[cocky jeremy]

You're right it's not a monopoly. It's a duopoly shared with Google.



Well at least we had some good in Tim Cook's legacy. The Mac moving to Apple Silicon making it the best it's ever been. AirPods are pretty cool and completely changed headphones forever. Apple got into streaming services and have made some absolutely fantastic TV shows and movies, and we're getting an AR headset next year, the first new major product category since the iPad (I don't count the Apple Watch since it's dependent on an iPhone and at this point is more an accessory)



There's many things that Apple made very popular by adopting it, most notably USB-A. Yeah, the G3 iMac and iBook popularized the USB-A standard by being the first major computer using it, in an era where PC accessory connections looked like this:

Apple also popularized wifi as the iBook was also the first laptop that supported wifi connectivity, with Apple also having a wifi modem called AirPort.

And lest we forget Apple created the first ultrabook with the first gen Macbook Air, which got OEMs to follow suit with the majority of laptops nowadays being thin and light (or at least trying to be)

So I don't understand the hesitation over adopting RCS just because Google popularized it given all the stuff Apple popularized and no one on the PC side batted an eye over that. Things that get popularized get popularized because they're genuinely good, simple as



Yeah nothing...well except for:

• Matter
• Contactless payment systems with Apple Pay
• USB-C
• ARM, you know, the architecture that all phones use and now their computers which is putting pressure on PC OEMs to step up their game
• And of course the Swift programming language which is open source and fully accessible in Apple's Github

Yes they primarily focus on their own ecosystem, but to say they haven't contribute anything to the industry in the last 5 years is completely untrue especially after the pandemic



God I would love to have macOS on non-Mac devices, as unlikely as that is. Really though macOS just needs to not be a nightmare to develop on which would convince non-Mac devs to start supporting the platform again. App notarization and forcing proprietary APIs did longterm damage to Mac gaming and software development

Well utilities for one. Utility companies often rely heavily on contracts with suppliers and vendors. When one vendor demonstrations superior performance, other companies in the industry may seek to learn from their practices

Aerospace and defense is another. Many aerospace and defense companies collab with each other to develop the best gear for their country's military, even companies who are historically rivals. The FGM-148 Javelin AKA a Russian tank's worst nightmare and signature weapon of the Ukrainian army was made by Texas Instruments and Raytheon Technologies. (Yes, a company that historically makes calculators makes anti-tank weapons. Wait until you learn that General Electric made the GAU-8 Avenger machine gun on the A-10 Thunderbolt)

And then there's the financial sector. The entire financial industry is built on the superior vendors sharing. Goldman Sachs' entire business structure is sharing their level of service to other businesses.

So this kind of practice is not unusual



Hate to break it to you but the Coke secret formula is a marketing ploy. The formula has been known for decades now and variations of it was made into the open-source cola license. The full Coke formula is protected by IP so Coca-Cola's version of Coke is still theirs, but variations of the formula are fair game.

Open-source cola - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, Apple and Google should have to share their platforms because no one else can competently make a phone people want to use? Apple and Google fought their way through massive cell phone companies to get to where they are. Why can't someone else?

 

[cdarlington1]

“Apple's iMessage monopoly” ummm, iMessage is Apple’s product.

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

So, Apple and Google should have to share their platforms because no one else can competently make a phone people want to use?

Yes. That's how the American Sherman Antitrust Act works which broadly prohibits:

1) anticompetitive agreements (Apple and Google's backdoor deals such as the billions Google pays each year to be the default search engine on iPhone, as well as other deals that Apple makes behind the scenes with parties like Amazon to allow them to ignore certain App Store rules) and

2) unilateral conduct that monopolizes or attempts to monopolize the relevant market.

Microsoft has to go through the same thing regarding Windows since they're the dominant desktop platform by a landslide.

And that's just US legislation. This isn't even factoring in the EU's Digital Markets Act which is forcing Apple to enable sideloading next year.

Apple and Google fought their way through massive cell phone companies to get to where they are. Why can't someone else?

Others did a long time ago. If there was more competition in the mobile operating system space then we wouldn't be having this conversation. Unfortunately we live in a timeline where Windows Phone flopped so iOS and Android are the only two mobile OSs, both comfortably sharing a mobile OS duopoly where you essentially gotta pick your poison.

So since no one else will (or can) compete against the two sole platform holders, regulation is necessary to keep both of them in check. That's the price you pay for being the only game in town.

 

[charlesdayton]

Third party Netflix apps are only illegal because a third-party app would circumvent Netflix's DRM, which goes against the DMCA as they supply copyrighted works. Apple has no such DRM or copyright on your content, only encryption, which you are decrypting via your legally created Apple ID. Apple allows you to create one without any Apple hardware.

What Beeper is doing is not illegal, but Apple is allowed to try and block this any way they can/want.

They are violating Apple EULA for iMessage. Read it!

 

[Sorinut]

They are violating Apple EULA for iMessage. Read it!

Individual users are, not Beeper. They just provide the tools, the end user connects and violates it.

 

[visualseed]

It is like building a box to descramble cable tv. Charging money for it. And then arguing that Comcast is being anti-competitive by blocking you from using it on their network and then enlisting a handful of harebrained politicians to jump in on your side because facts and logic no longer matter when you can just make noise and hope to get your way.

 

[derek4484]

Apple doesn't allow other apps to take on the role of SMS/MMS handler so it's not possible for others to make an app which is integrated with standard text messaging (which is a big part of why iMessage is as frictionless as it is). This doesn't stop apps like WhatsApp existing, but it does effectively prevent anyone making a useful iPhone app to engage in rich communication with default messaging apps on Android (i.e. via RCS). Such an app would need SMS/MMS fallback just like iMessage needs SMS/MMS fallback.

I agree. However Beeper didn’t send SMS/MMS, it sent data messages.

 

[drumcat]

Reverse engineering, under most circumstances, is completely legal. They didn't crack encryption, break into Apple's servers, or anything that would violate the CFAA.

No one said anything about cracking encryption. You're still not allowed to steal, even if a door isn't bolted shut.

 

[Stiksi]

iMessage has what it has, and if you buy an iPhone then you buy it for a reason.

Would you buy a Skoda and complain it doesn’t have all the bells and whistles of a BMW? If you answer yes then you have a problem.

If you buy an iPhone and expect it to behave like an android, then you have a problem.

If you buy an iPhone and expect it to behave like an iPhone then you do not have a problem.

That doesn’t really make a lot of sense when all the apps mentioned are on the iPhone.

 

[Boeingfan]

That doesn’t really make a lot of sense when all the apps mentioned are on the iPhone.

It makes perfect sense; buy an iPhone. If a phone doesn’t have iMessage, ditch it and buy an iPhone. It’s really not a complicated situation.

 

[Stiksi]

It makes perfect sense; buy an iPhone. If a phone doesn’t have iMessage, ditch it and buy an iPhone. It’s really not a complicated situation.

I meant regular person sense, not Apple megafan sense 😀

 

[sir1963nz]

If your wife is happy with Meta reading all of her Messenger communications and selling the information to third parties, fine. But I’ll bet she doesn’t realize that’s happening.

She does, I tell her. Freedom of choice is a fine thing I guess.
Not one I choose, I will not have Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc on any of my devices.