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

11–20 of 24 posts

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

#11

Post by Mountain_Skies »

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.

In the US, Apple holds 87% of the teen phone market and iMessage is bundled with the phone. You don't have to have 100% of a market to be a monopoly and Apple's policy of visually distinguishing users of iMessage from those using other platforms leverages peer pressure to ensure it continues to command the overwhelming majority of the teen market. Not sure how it is defensible to use minors developing social skills as a pattern for entrenching one's share of that market.

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

#12

Post by rufius »

maxsilver wrote: post #10
rufius wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You can disable iMessage altogether. Sure you can't uninstall it, but you can choose to simply not have it enabled on the phone: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203042

Basically no user would do this but it's not somehow magically forced on the user.

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

#14

Post by mlazos »

8note wrote: post #13

I still don't get why Apple doesn't get hit with antitrust by not installing several messaging apps at start time, and the user gets to decide which one is the default, the same as Microsoft with browsers

MS does not install multiple browsers.. the issue in that trial was special API access and blocking out competitors. There are plenty of competing message apps in the app store

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

#15

Post by Two4 »

rufius wrote: post #12
maxsilver wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You can disable iMessage altogether. Sure you can't uninstall it, but you can choose to simply not have it enabled on the phone: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203042 Basically no user would do this but it's not somehow magically forced on the user.

You could also disable internet explorer - the antitrust comes in when you pre-empt any competitive consumer choice by forcibly bundling the application, iirc.

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

#16

Post by Two4 »

I don't think most of these top-level commenters get it. The issue isn't just that they don't allow external clients, it's that they privilege iMessage with special API access that other messaging clients don't have, prevent interoperability with other phones by explicitly not supporting RCS, and forcibly bundle the iMessage service, pre-empting consumer choice and suppressing healthy competition by abusing a oligopolistic market position. This is anti-trust 101.

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

#17

Post by hulitu »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #11
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.

In the US, Apple holds 87% of the teen phone market and iMessage is bundled with the phone. You don't have to have 100% of a market to be a monopoly and Apple's policy of visually distinguishing users of iMessage from those using other platforms leverages peer pressure to ensure it continues to command the overwhelming majority of the teen market. Not sure how it is defensible to use minors developing social skills a…

> In the US, Apple holds 87% of the teen phone market

So people who do not afford to buy a loaf of bread, bought an iPhone. I think the problem lies somewhere else.

"Daddy, i want an iPhone. Everyone has one". "Sorry, i don't pay 800 Euros for a toy to make phone calls and watch youtube"

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

#18

Post by wpm »

Two4 wrote: post #15
rufius wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can disable iMessage altogether. Sure you can't uninstall it, but you can choose to simply not have it enabled on the phone: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203042 Basically no user would do this but it's not somehow magically forced on the user.

You could also disable internet explorer - the antitrust comes in when you pre-empt any competitive consumer choice by forcibly bundling the application, iirc.

iMessage is an entirely separate service. It’s inactive until you activate it. It costs nothing to not enable. My dad refused to turn it on until last year but his iCloud account functioned without issue so he wasn’t “punished” or dark patterned into turning it on.

Is the Camera app an antitrust issue too? Any bundled application?

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

#19

Post by mmmmmbop »

I'm really surprised by the many comments feigning surprise at the view that Apple's actions in this case are anti-competitive.

Previously, Google was found liable of anti-competitive practices for only showing Google Shopping results in the carousel at the top of the search results page. The argument was that Google was abusing its dominant market position in search engines to gain a market advantage in comparison shopping services. As a result, Google was ordered to allow third-party comparison shopping services to integrate.

How is this different? The problem with iMessage is that it has that premium, native, and out-of-the-box OS integration including the SMS fallback. No other messaging app can compete with that.

Every other app needs to be a separate app that must be downloaded from the App Store. No other app can have the SMS fallback because iOS prohibits third-party SMS apps.

They are abusing their dominant market position in smartphones to gain a market advantage in messaging services. They have previously stated that they profit financially from a strong market position of iMessage, because that in turn boosts iPhone sales.

If Apple doesn't want to integrate third-party message services into iMessage and/or Messages, they are free to compete on even ground. They'd have to extract iMessage from the Messages app, change it to a non-preinstalled app that must be downloaded from the App Store, and remove the SMS fallback.

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

#20

Post by xg15 »

wpm wrote: post #18
Two4 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could also disable internet explorer - the antitrust comes in when you pre-empt any competitive consumer choice by forcibly bundling the application, iirc.

iMessage is an entirely separate service. It’s inactive until you activate it. It costs nothing to not enable. My dad refused to turn it on until last year but his iCloud account functioned without issue so he wasn’t “punished” or dark patterned into turning it on. Is the Camera app an antitrust issue too? Any bundled application?

Not an iPhone user, but if iMessage is also the sole permitted SMS client for iOS, how would you send or receive SMS messages when iMessage is disabled?
Post reply on HN