Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple's tight grip on iMessage spurs fresh calls for an antitrust probe

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 24 posts

Re: Apple's tight grip on iMessage spurs fresh calls for an antitrust probe

#5

Post by hedora »

throwaway5959 wrote: post #2

Yes, because what the market lacks is competition in the messaging space. There are only what, a dozen other options, at least half of which support E2E encryption, audio/video, etc.

Also, most of the benefit of iMessage is due to it being device locked (as in spammers have to burn through iPhones in order to bug people on it) and iOS integrations like apple pay, being able to send large photo and file attachments, FaceTime, etc.

What does it even mean for Android to support iMessage if receiving images and videos means getting a non-url link to an iCloud photo (or synchronously transferring GBs at delivery time)?

Re: Apple's tight grip on iMessage spurs fresh calls for an antitrust probe

#6

Post by hedora »

dixie_land wrote: post #4
askafriend wrote: post #3

Next we should launch an anti-trust probe into McDonald's burgers.

And force coke to share their recipe

Nah. They should force coke to allow anyone who asks to put random stuff into coke vending machines.

Re: Apple's tight grip on iMessage spurs fresh calls for an antitrust probe

#8

Post by olliej »

hedora wrote: post #5
throwaway5959 wrote: post #2

Yes, because what the market lacks is competition in the messaging space. There are only what, a dozen other options, at least half of which support E2E encryption, audio/video, etc.

Also, most of the benefit of iMessage is due to it being device locked (as in spammers have to burn through iPhones in order to bug people on it) and iOS integrations like apple pay, being able to send large photo and file attachments, FaceTime, etc. What does it even mean for Android to support iMessage if receiving images and videos means getting a non-url link to an iCloud photo (or synchronously transferring GBs…

Also who is paying for all this? iMessage is not a free service

Re: Apple's tight grip on iMessage spurs fresh calls for an antitrust probe

#9

Post by rufius »

kotaKat wrote: post #7

Can I get an antitrust probe for every other app that doesn't allow third party clients, too? Hell, I remember getting banned back in the day from Snap for using the Windows Phone app.

I honestly don't understand the argument. I'm not saying there isn't one - but it's not as though any other tech company is clamoring to allow unauthorized third party access to their services.

Without a drastic overhaul across the entire industry around the definition of service providers "interface" and requirements around documentation, it'll just open an exciting new can of worms and pain for customers. Support will be hell, experiences that work seamless will be difficult to achieve.

Again - that's not to say it's a bad idea, it just seems like we'd need a real rethinking of how we're doing things as an industry. That could be good, or we end up with a tragedy of the commons.

Re: Apple's tight grip on iMessage spurs fresh calls for an antitrust probe

#10

Post by maxsilver »

rufius wrote: post #9
kotaKat wrote: post #7

Can I get an antitrust probe for every other app that doesn't allow third party clients, too? Hell, I remember getting banned back in the day from Snap for using the Windows Phone app.

I honestly don't understand the argument. I'm not saying there isn't one - but it's not as though any other tech company is clamoring to allow unauthorized third party access to their services. Without a drastic overhaul across the entire industry around the definition of service providers "interface" and requirements around documentation, it'll just open an exciting new can of worms and pain for customers. Support w…

> I honestly don't understand the argument. I'm not saying there isn't one - but it's not as though any other tech company is clamoring to allow unauthorized third party access to their services.

I think the argument is the bundling of iMessage in with SMS. Yes, there's lots of third-party chat services too, and yes, no other tech company is clamoring to allow unauthorized third party access either.

But iMessage gets to intercept and pretend to be SMS (or more accurately, iMessage exists to block the RCS your phone line always already had) and it's pre-installed, uninstallable, and with special access exclusive to apple, which is where I think the argument could land.

A case could be argued of iMessage + iPhone is really similar to the late 90s era Microsoft Windows + Internet Explorer, in that they both break Sherman Antitrust Act: Section 2, in very similar ways, for very similar reasons.

(to be clear, I don't think they'd win, but I could see a strong argument there)

Post reply on HN