I would easily pay a (small) subscription price to have iMessage on another platform than Apple. My kids and wife use iOS devices, but I'm locked into Android due to other reasons, mostly the company I work for. I'm not going to carry around two devices, and thus Apple has lost another opportunity to bring me in.
Apple: iMessage on Android 'will hurt us more than help us'
- Thread starter Joe White
- Start date
CommonSenseTech
Posts: 103 +94
I’d like all my Microsoft, Google and Apple services to work seamlessly on every device. But they’re never gonna do it when control of the platform is their goal, alas.
It used to torque my jaw when Google would charge me for Apps (now Workspace) but then break my Windows Phone. It’s all part of the fun of the tech biz...
kiwigraeme
Posts: 1,999 +1,410
Apple are probably lucky - that their main base is USA - these emails are perfect for the EU to go after them . The EU will come down more and more on this stuff - they are not interested in whiny baby tears - they can not be stopped , they can not be reason with .
Secondly some of the iphone supporters comments here are perverse rejoicing in Apples control over them , restricted them , milking them at will - yes you may be a shareholder - but have some pride - tech just wants to be free - I said it before and will say it again Stockholm Syndrome
Mummy knows best
Secondly some of the iphone supporters comments here are perverse rejoicing in Apples control over them , restricted them , milking them at will - yes you may be a shareholder - but have some pride - tech just wants to be free - I said it before and will say it again Stockholm Syndrome
Mummy knows best
CommonSenseTech
Posts: 103 +94
The EU doesn’t quite have the power on this that I suspect they wish they had, especially with the new US administration saying they’d target European airlines, manufacturers, banks and aerospace companies if Brussels continues its attacks on US tech leaders. I doubt Brussels would risk a Washington-mandated breakup of Airbus, Volkswagen, Stellantis or IAG over some Apple emails, especially since all of those European enterprises exist in their present form because Washington declined to apply a rigorous interpretation of US monopoly law.
Last edited:
Cubi Dorf
Posts: 372 +244
Epic was baiting them to remove app so they could claim Apple is abusing app sale monopoly they gave to themself that was not formed through competition on open market.
Cubi Dorf
Posts: 372 +244
If it is monopoly or near-monopoly with intention of vendor lock-in then yes it is illegal in many country. offer product to restricted market is not necessarily vendor lock-in. when email like this then there is proof of vendor lock-in.
Rayneofpayne
Posts: 502 +415
If they aren't stupid they would exclusives serve no purpose other than gimping your sales when you mostly break even on the hardware anyways.
Cubi Dorf
Posts: 372 +244
Vendor lock-in does not mean you are unable to leave. it just mean there is intentional high cost or making difficult to switch, such that people would be less likely to leave. it can still being illegal in many country. Epic goal is to show Apple is illegally having monopoly in app sale by abusing position as os vendor because they want to open their own app store on ios.
Inthenstus
Posts: 168 +264
They aren’t wrong, happy iPhone user here, but if I could FaceTime/iMessage my family from an Android I’d seriously consider the swap.
George Keech
Posts: 265 +458
I would say there are a few differences for console I would also say if you look at the numbers people have no issues moving from one platform to another each generation, you don't really see that in the Phone industry.
Its a bit of a poisoned chalice I 100% think Apples are a bit anti-competitive but would also argue most of the worlds revenue comes from Anti-competitive firms Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Facebook but I think its so wide ranging and the negative impact from effectively dismantle these Monopolies would outweigh the good.
kiwigraeme
Posts: 1,999 +1,410
It's not about that. The argument is that Apple is intetionally creating an unfair barrier that they use to keep ppl in their ecosystem (like intentionally making it hard or imposible to move your data from apple to anywhere else) which in turn gives them the power to enforce things like: only safari engine for browsers, only apple pay in apps, etc.
In my personal opinion (which is actually a fact) both companies are scummy and anti-consumer.
Avro Arrow
Posts: 3,721 +4,821
Yep, Apple knows damn well that when people no longer have to pay the Apple Tax, they no longer want to pay the Apple Tax.
Avro Arrow
Posts: 3,721 +4,821
You found two. One person gave it a like.
Honestly I don't get why people even use iMessage or texting via phone numbers in the first place. A good 80% of my communication is via Snapchat, Hangouts, or facebook messenger.
Doesn't help that iMessage only has a client for Mac OS and not windows, which really hinders anyone that needs a machine to do real work. I cant be the only one who prefers to chat via their PC while at work.
CommonSenseTech
Posts: 103 +94
If that was their intention, they’re going to need to open up their app too and allow competitors to access their servers, content and so on if they get their way.
As is usually the case in these arguments “the standard applies to you but not to me” is the rule of the day. That’s how you get Google using its Search and mobile OS dominance to crush Windows Phone by breaking common services, while later getting Google and its allies complaining that Apple isn’t sufficiently open.
Last edited:
CommonSenseTech
Posts: 103 +94
Wow, I’ve been using a Mac as my primary machine for work (and self) for about eight years now. I was getting paychecks and all, despite not doing any real work!
You should try it yourself. Why use a PC and do Real Work when you can get paid to not work with a Mac as your primary machine?! ;P
As I've mentioned on other forums post related to this topic, this is a case that will set long term precedent and will impact multiple industries. Depending on its outcome, you could send waves through every marketplace. The end results of this could force markets to allow third party markets to be published on their store. And remember, those criticizing Apple should also know that Epic is suing Google for the SAME exact thing. That case has been put on hold pending the results of this Apple vs Epic case. Epic wants to bypass Apple/Google's store by offering a third party store (Epic app) to sell games/skins/vBucks without paying for the app store. I think Apple will prevail primarily, but I do wonder if in store apps should be a smaller fee. Not sure the courts will get involved at that level but I suspect this case will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.
It's not easy for anyone to move out of any city or ecosystem without consequences. Think of all the apps you will lose access to if you move from Google to Apple. All those paid for apps, GONE. But is that not different than moving from iMac to Windows or vice versa? Almost all platforms suffer from this and you will lose & gain by switching ecosystems.
terzaerian
Posts: 1,517 +2,260
Because Apple distorts the landscape of the industry through its mere existence, the same way Epic distorts the landscape of PC gaming by buying out exclusives.
I only wish both parties could lose a lawsuit.
Cubi Dorf
Posts: 372 +244
I use both mac and windows so if one doesn't meeting my needs for a task I can use other one. It is not matter of leaving one to go to the other. I am just having both. but I am not going to carry 2 phone even though I am having enough capacity in purse. It would require extra mobile service. It would being too crazy.
I am agree with you this case will set precedent that many people are not anticipate. People need to look past who the company are and consider only the situation. It does not matter if both company are "sleaze" and only matter what is fair and just and good for society. Otherwise the future may be a wrecking.
I am agree with you this case will set precedent that many people are not anticipate. People need to look past who the company are and consider only the situation. It does not matter if both company are "sleaze" and only matter what is fair and just and good for society. Otherwise the future may be a wrecking.
I have a Macbook Air for my primary home laptop. But you pretty much need to run nearly everything in a VM as MacOS lacks heavy in indusial and commercial apps. Plus MacOS doesn't integrate well into a Active Directory setup. There are reasons why Macs are rare in the workforce. They are great web devices, and these days most MacOS power users are web devs.
I've programmed so many devices that require windows based software to talk to the equipment. And use too much software that just works better on windows.
Cubi Dorf
Posts: 372 +244
Epic does not want to access Apple servers or content. Epic want right to have their own store that sell games for iOS.
Epic is saying Apple is does not allow anyone to compete with Apple by abusing their position as OS vendor to create illegal monopoly in app sale. Apple say it is not monopoly because iOS apps are not a market, but instead all software (regardless of operating system it run on) should be seen as a market.
If Apple win, it set legal precedence that it is legal for other company also. It will set a new standard for how software is sold in all future OS (maybe not include Linux that is free). Microsoft will follow this model if it is found legal. If Microsoft can force every software sale to give them 30% cut, they will do it. Software prices will go up as result. Company like EA, Blizzard, Steam are not going to give up 30% of their revenue. They will raising price by 30% to add OS vendor cut. Anyone who think otherwise is fool.
I do agree you that if Epic is doing same thing then they too should change. I am agree you there should not being any situation of “the standard applies to you but not to me”
Epic is saying Apple is does not allow anyone to compete with Apple by abusing their position as OS vendor to create illegal monopoly in app sale. Apple say it is not monopoly because iOS apps are not a market, but instead all software (regardless of operating system it run on) should be seen as a market.
If Apple win, it set legal precedence that it is legal for other company also. It will set a new standard for how software is sold in all future OS (maybe not include Linux that is free). Microsoft will follow this model if it is found legal. If Microsoft can force every software sale to give them 30% cut, they will do it. Software prices will go up as result. Company like EA, Blizzard, Steam are not going to give up 30% of their revenue. They will raising price by 30% to add OS vendor cut. Anyone who think otherwise is fool.
I do agree you that if Epic is doing same thing then they too should change. I am agree you there should not being any situation of “the standard applies to you but not to me”
I don't know anyone that buys an iPhone just for iMessage. I have an iPhone, largely because I've had iPhones for a while and have a fair amount of music and apps. Not that they can't be migrated to Android but it's just easy to stick with iPhones. I've had Android phones in the past, usually supplied by my employer. I never found enough of a reason to switch. That's not saying Android is worse than iOS, just that there wasn't anything compelling enough to make the switch.
spaceboy
Posts: 9 +2
I don't think Epic understands iMessage at all. I hope their whole case is not resting on them saying that an optional service is anti-consumer.
iMessage is not a required service, it can be disabled and you don't need it to send or receive standard text messages. Seem like Epic has done zero research on this and will be laughed at again.
iMessage is not a required service, it can be disabled and you don't need it to send or receive standard text messages. Seem like Epic has done zero research on this and will be laughed at again.
Similar threads
