Apple: iMessage on Android 'will hurt us more than help us'

[spaceboy]

Its Apples service (not software), they can do what they want with their platform. Epics stance on this is weak. If Epic wants to open a can of whipass on Apple they better do better than this.

Agreed. Apples optional service, not required, can be disabled and text still works when it is turned off.

 

[Cubi Dorf]

They are trying to show Apple is intentionally doing vendor lock-in. Apple argument that software across different platform is competing with each other gets weaker as vendor lock-in increases.

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.

 

[DZillaXx]

On pretty much every other OS other than iOS can you install a 3rd party app store.

This is what Epic is challenging.

Google doesn't lock users into only installing apps via google play store.

Apple shouldn't lock users into only installing apps via the app store.

 

[CommonSenseTech]

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).

It is interesting how consumer perspectives get tied up with corporate perspectives in these debates.

Epic is trying to hang its hat on the idea that what’s good for Epic (freeloading on iOS) is good for consumers who chose a device from Apple that doesn’t allow such freeloading.

Then again, Apple’s own rationale for iOS App Store controls is “security.” Yet there are Apple verified apps that stole money from crypto users and Apple isn’t taking any steps to refund the cash.

Ultimately consumers vote with their wallets, and they’ve overwhelmingly voted for two closed, locked-down ecosystems — the Apple App Store and the Google Play Store. Other more open ecosystems from Microsoft, Palm, Nokia, etc. failed. I don’t think that failure is a coincidence — I think most people don’t care about “openness,” and most companies who call for openness don’t actually practice it themselves.

 

[CommonSenseTech]

They are trying to show Apple is intentionally doing vendor lock-in. Apple argument that software across different platform is competing with each other gets weaker as vendor lock-in increases.

iMessage isn’t vendor lock-in. If you’re on an Android, you can still send me an SMS or MMS to my iPhone running iMessage.

The iMessage experience is vastly superior to the SMS & MMS experience, but that’s hardly anticompetitive. A BMW drives better than a Kia too. That’s not “lock-in,” it’s just a better product.

Google had a shot with its efforts around RCS, but as with most Google consumer software, it was unreliable, slow and of poor quality. Carriers recently dumped it.

The answer isn’t for Apple to be forced to give up its stuff to the competition, the answer is for the competition to not suck. Android controls 90% of the mobile market, and if Google created a non-crap messaging standard, Apple would have to end up supporting it.

The other problem is that the thesis that a messaging platform protects an ecosystem was already disproven with BlackBerry Messenger. It was once dominant, and BB didn’t release it for other platforms until the BlackBerry was in severe decline. People happily ditched BB for iOS and other platforms even before their was an iMessage.