Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:
Beeper moving on from its attempt to bring iMessage to Android users due to Apple closing all the possible loopholes. But that doesn’t mean the story is about to end here.
After a blog post from the company CEO saying he wants Beeper to be the “best chat app ever,” with or without iMessage support for Android, The New York Times reports that the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission want to understand this Apple vs. Beeper controversy better.
The publication says this duel has “raised questions in Washington about whether Apple has used its market dominance over iMessage to block competition and force consumers to spend more on iPhones than lower-priced alternatives.”
People familiar with the matter told the Justice Department’s antitrust lawyer met with Eric Migicovsky, the co-founder of Beeper, about this possible anticompetitive behavior by Apple. At the same time, the FTC posted in its blog that it would scrutinize “dominant” players that “use privacy and security as a justification to disallow interoperability” between services.
Although ultimately, this fight has more to do with Americans being used to texting through the Messages app instead of WhatsApp, Telegram, or another alternative, the government is worried about anticompetitive behavior from Apple, as it has been questioning the company about the App Store, Apple Pay monopoly, and so on.
(Score: 3, Flamebait) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday December 26, @04:02PM
>whether Apple has used its market dominance over iMessage to block competition and force consumers to spend more on iPhones than lower-priced alternatives.”
If the didn't then they are negligent in their fiscal duties to their shareholders.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DadaDoofy on Tuesday December 26, @05:41PM (2 children)
I wouldn't expect anything else from the fascists at the New York Times, DOJ and FTC, but in fact it's quite the opposite. Apple invested in the R&D and infrastructure to support the iMessage service precisely so they could be competitive. Apple sells more i-devices if the services offered on them are superior to those of the competition.
Apple is not in any way obligated to provide iMessage free of charge to people who are not even their customers. Business doesn't work that way.
As I've said before and as even Apple Insider agrees, "If you want blue iMessage bubbles that much, buy an iPhone."
https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/12/21/if-you-want-blue-imessage-bubbles-that-much-buy-an-iphone [appleinsider.com]
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 26, @11:17PM
Fascists? The DOJ and FTC? And the NYT? I'm not sure what I think that word means is the same that you think it means.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GloomMower on Tuesday December 26, @11:36PM
> Apple invested in the R&D and infrastructure to support the iMessage service precisely so they could be competitive. Apple sells more i-devices if the services offered on them are superior to those of the competition.
It isn't really to be superior. It is not not interoperate and give your customers the impression that other phones are so inferior they can't take good video or pictures.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Tuesday December 26, @06:50PM (4 children)
So some of the government is starting to discover that use of the network effect can be a form of anticompetitive behaviour. Maybe there will arise a push toward interoperability?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by helel on Tuesday December 26, @06:57PM (2 children)
This case is, imo, quite stupid. "We broke into your network without permission, it's anti-competitive if you lock us out again!"
That said there is the underlying issue of network effect and pseudo-monopolies. Should YouTube be forced to recommend and link to other video platforms? One of the reasons many people stay on YouTube is because of that traffic YouTube gives them that no other platform can.
I think there's definitely a problem here but I don't really know how to solve it. Certainly the problem is easier to approach for messaging software where regulation can require any provider past a certain size provide an API for others to access but that's only a start to the social media/networking problems we see right now.
(Score: 3, Informative) by darkfeline on Tuesday December 26, @08:05PM
> Should YouTube be forced to recommend and link to other video platforms?
False equivalency. The equivalent analogy would be if you needed to buy Google's hardware (not just Android) to post or view full quality YouTube videos.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by GloomMower on Tuesday December 26, @10:52PM
> I think there's definitely a problem here but I don't really know how to solve it. Certainly the problem is easier to approach for messaging software where regulation can require any provider past a certain size provide an API for others to access but that's only a start to the social media/networking problems we see right now.
The real problem is SMS and MMS are horrible. Horrible in reliability and sending any media. Apple Messager is a app presenting itself to be a SMS and MMS app that uses their own network and infrastructure if you are sending and receiving using their hardware and OS. Most of the people might just think non-apple phones are bad because their stuff is grainy.
I believe Google also has something, but will let other developers use it (apples wont, since other phones won't look bad to their current customers). Most of my "mixed phone" friends use some other chat app like signal. However we are just a small group of close friends.
My sisters group is larger and there everyone just needs a iphone to send videos of their kids or whatever and many refuse to use anything else besides apples messenger. I don't really care if I get a grainy video of my sisters kid. Not wanting to use imessager or apples products is a higher priority then seeing clearer videos from her.
Is education an answer?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 26, @08:37PM
"regulation can require any provider past a certain size provide an API for others to access"
They REALLY REALLY REALLY do not want to become a common carrier.
We're all friends in the Apple Walled Garden.
None of those nasty spammers in here, nope nope nope.
(Score: 2) by GloomMower on Tuesday December 26, @11:41PM (1 child)
Is it a monopoly practice? Ask yourself who gains from what they are doing, your average consumer or Apple themselves. Wouldn't the consumer benefit if they can send clearer images and video and reliable message to all?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday December 27, @03:13PM
My wife and I use android phones. She plays all the various messaging games with her friends on iOS, the shifting incompatibility and frustration is real and at least partly intentional on the part of the service providers.
I mostly use email, much less frustration there, regardless of the recipient platform.
🌻🌻 [google.com]