> Apple executive Eddy Cue pushed for an Android iMessage app in 2016, but Craig Federighi responded in an internal email that “iMessage on Android would simply serve to remove an obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones.”
This conversation happened 8 years ago and it was about a product released 12 years ago. If anything, this shows how slow regulators are before they take any action and how they are effectively contributing to building the garden walls, through inaction.
The truth is, all businesses do what Craig suggested.
AirBnB isn't opening up their platform to Expedia. Meta isn't allowing your Instagram data to be accessed by another platform. Your own company isn't voluntarily making it easier for its customers to leave.
Well, yes. It's a great reason to not let businesses decide on these things, because their petty interpretation will always override a communal solution. Once you reach Apple's scale, you shouldn't expect to start replacing stuff like SMS with a proprietary alternative and get away with it.
Apple didn't replace SMS. It is still there on every iPhone, and they expanded SMS reach for iPhone users who have other devices like iPad and macOs systems.
In what universe do you exist where SMS was removed?
HN tells me that there's only one more step left after embracing and extending. Apple didn't make some mistake putting iMessage and SMS in the same app, they want you reliant on their service so that SMS seems (rightfully) poor by comparison.
There would be nothing wrong with that if Apple wasn't equally as miserly with that power as the carriers they want to valiantly protest against. I'm no fan of cell carriers either, but now that we see Apple's end-goal I don't think their cause is righteous at all. In the friendliest of interpretations, they are a competing alternative enabled by disproportionate first-party integration on Apple's behalf. It doesn't take long to extrapolate their motives for deliberately neglecting cross-platform interoperability to bolster their market presence.
If it harms the market, prevents fair competition, and doesn't benefit the general public, there is no rational reason to let iMessage persist the way it is today.
The problem with "prevents fair competition" with regards to iMessage is that there were plenty of chances for fair competition and others (particularly Google) kept messing it up. How many chat platforms did they blow through?
I can absolutely install other messaging apps (WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, etc.) on my iPhone and contact other people on an Android device using that app. The thing that keeps me from doing so isn't the fact that said applications are locked out of a decent percentage of the phone market, but that the network effect helps Apple. Most of my friends don't know, or care to know, what Signal is, even though it's a better application re: privacy than iMessage.
Which, to me, demonstrates the core problem: Apple succeeded by remaining focused. Google failed because it has some form of institutional ADHD when it comes to messaging services. Google even had a six year head start on Apple with Google Talk, and still managed to fail because they couldn't remain focused.
People are upset that Apple succeeded, but they aren't even running the most popular messaging service out there.
It is so funny how differently the Messages app is viewed.
In NA, Messages is the true source of Apple’s power and the key to their evil anticompetitive empire, the only ones who can stop their masterplan are the men in suits from the DOJ.
Outside of NA, it’s the app you use to get TOTP codes and phishing attempts.
You’re right that the real story isn’t that Google missed out competing with iMessage, it’s that they missed out competing with WhatsApp despite having control over the OS and being able to bundle their own messaging app!
Google is not even competitive with third tier apps such as Viber which is really funny. I read HN compulsively yet I don’t know what the name of Google’s current chat app is or even if they have one.
Google isn't really part of Apple's messaging roadmap aside from RCS (which is also not great). For the most part, for better (and absolutely worse), Google's default messaging app on Android has always been SMS. There were no cheeky attempts to weasel Google Talk or Hangouts into my texting app; they were separate things.
It's a mistake to assume that Google wants to pick a fight with carriers just because Apple does. Their goal isn't to replace SMS or use it as an obtuse marketing stunt, and whether or not that's the right or wrong decision is a hilariously irrelevant distraction to the actual problem. SMS sucks, and replacing it is either a community effort or a regulated one. Apple chose "regulated" a long, long time ago by making an insular service their replacement candidate.
WhatsApp too is a problem in it's own right; but again, it's a strawman when we're discussing Apple's specific damages (which neither Google nor Meta copy in-full). Apple uniquely uses their vertical integration to create a less competitive environment for third-parties, which is damned for scrutiny everywhere they try it. There is no reality where Google announces that WhatsApp comes preinstalled in the messaging app without immediate and legitimate antitrust bundling accusations.
Generally companies need to do something wrong before being regulated, as self regulation is the goal. There’s a lot of opinions in this post as well, with “extrapolating”. Have you asked the actual customers how they feel? I’m an Apple customer, and really wish the Android customers would focus on their own wants and needs. Blue bubbles are not a need.
> HN tells me that there's only one more step left after embracing and extending.
It is a wild projection, a common one amongst members of this esteemed congregation.
Removing SMS supports invalidates and revokes the 3G/4G/5G network compliance with standards and certification, whether you are Apple or an invisible fifth column. It also voids the right to display the very same 3G/4G/5G sign in the upper part of the smartphone screen and opens a very expensive path to litigation from all sorts of patent holders from the 3/4/5G patent pool.
You don't have to remove support to extinguish a protocol; just sufficiently degrade it to the point that it's unusable.
With that in mind (and how outrageously useless SMS is in 2024), I think you can absolutely accuse Apple's reluctance to standardize as extinguishing. Unless they correct course, iMessage's greatest contribution to text-messaging will be making it a proprietary affair. That would be the lamest way to go down in history, which is why I really hope Apple does the right thing and either a) commits to a better standard than RCS or b) extends iMessage to some more reasonable and open protocol.
I am not following the train of thought. All I am reading is yet another wild projection.
SMS is the lowest common denominator across all mobile networks and is the ultimate fallback option for a smartphone if more modern messaging standards or extensions (RCS, iMessage or whatever) are not supported. Degrading SMS means losing 3/4/5G certification and losing the telecommunication authority certification in every single country around the world, consequently instantly losing sales. No sane company that is in the business of selling phones would dare to lose the certification on a global scale. SMS messaging has worked like a charm on iPhones, and I am not sure what the insinuation is all about.
GSMA, the governing body of 3/4/5/6G, has neither adopted nor endorsed RCS up to date, and it is supported at the core network layer only by a fraction of mobile operators across the world. SMS, being a 21st century rotary dial phone equivalent, is supported by every mobile network today however outdated it is. RCS is not.
The original spat over RCS, however, concerned a few sticking points:
1. Google becoming a gatekeeper and holding messages until they could be delivered to the recipient;
2. RCS not being end-to-end encrypted;
2½.Google providing a proprietory encryption protocol with no open source implementation and – *at first* – encryption only being available to P2P conversations (aka FaceBook Messenger style secret chats but not to group chats[0]);
3. Owing to (1), Google gaining the ability to track users via the use of metadata;
4. Only a limited number of Android handsets supporting RCS in the beginning.
I have no stake in the game, but, if I were Apple, I would have not agreed to RCS, either, considering the constraints.
As of May 2024, RCS is still not part of the GSMA portfolio of standards. From the mobile network perspective, it does not exist.
> I don't see that removing or crippling an option a lot of users rely on improves the market, or competition.
It certainly doesn't need to be removed, just expanded. Apple can't have their cake and eat it too, you either replace SMS and the multiplatform commitments that come with it or you don't. Pretending to hold down a halfway-house to keep selling iPhones is not only a bundling tactic, but combined with Apple's negligence towards alternatives it's genuinely anticompetitive.
> Are happy iPhone users that rely on iMessage every day including it's SMS integration not benefited, or not the public?
...no, those are happy iPhone users. The public inherently means people that are not paying customers of Apple; regular citizens with no outstanding obligations to any corporation.
I don't understand how you could possibly interpret "the public" to mean "satisfied iPhone customers" in this situation.
> Apple can't have their cake and eat it too, you either replace SMS and the multiplatform commitments that come with it or you don't.
You keep suggesting that Apple replaced SMS. They didn't. So per this new statement, they have no multi-platform commitments because they haven't done anything to warrant it.
Is there an example of Microsoft ever actually "extinguishing" something? The extinguish bit is more about making the competing services non-viable. Microsoft's whole strategy was built around making it so a user on its platform either couldn't or wouldn't want to use a particular technology without their proprietary extensions. That perfectly describes iMessage if we're to believe all the commentary on social media about how iPhone users get the "ick" from seeing a green bubble.
In fact, I'd argue that iMessage has been one of the most successful implementations of EEE ever. Maybe only behind ActiveX and Microsoft's slow adoption of web standards in the late 90s - mid 00s (but MS never actually replaced HTML or JavaScript with its proprietary stuff).
> In fact, I'd argue that iMessage has been one of the most successful implementations of EEE ever. Maybe only behind ActiveX and Microsoft's slow adoption of web standards in the late 90s - mid 00s (but MS never actually replaced HTML or JavaScript with its proprietary stuff).
Is it? Globally, iMessage is far from the most popular messaging application. If it's an attempt at EEE it's not a great one. IE was far more successful in degree and longevity of impact.
And no, they didn't. They just implemented CSS and other things exactly counter to the spec in a number of spots, along with other incompatibilities in order to make developers have to choose: 80% to 90% of the market, or conform to standards?
> That perfectly describes iMessage if we're to believe all the commentary on social media about how iPhone users get the "ick" from seeing a green bubble.
The only people who care about that their own messages on their own phones show up as green bubbles are children. The rest of the world doesn't give a shit. They see green bubbles because they use WhatsApp.
> Is it? Globally, iMessage is far from the most popular messaging application. If it's an attempt at EEE it's not a great one. IE was far more successful in degree and longevity of impact.
I basically already said it was second to IE. What else did MS do that was more successful than iMessage? There were definitely many attempts by Microsoft that were not as successful like Visual J++. They also had a similar strategy to iMessage with MSN Messenger embracing and extending AIM and they had a lot of success with that but most of that success came right before desktop messaging was superseded by mobile messaging.
> The only people who care about that their own messages on their own phones show up as green bubbles are children. The rest of the world doesn't give a shit. They see green bubbles because they use WhatsApp.
Thats just just not true in America. There are literally adult Android users that who post about how using Android is a barrier to their dating life because other adult iPhone users (which is the majority for certain age groups) will just simply refuse to date someone who doesn't use an iPhone.
I've also heard personal anecdotes from single men that I know who use Android (it definitely goes other way too but I know more single men personally than women).
All this over green bubbles. Life has gotten so good in the US that all that’s left to focus on is green bubbles. We’ve solved homelessness, wealth gaps, housing crisis, so now it’s time to take down Apple because those green bubbles need to die.
I wish this current generation would learn what’s actually important to fight for. Green bubbles are not on the list.
The problem is that Apple, the world's largest tech company, is reluctant to create or join messaging standards.
I'm not sure if you're very familiar with the prevalence of texting (or Apple) in the 21st century but it stands to reason that this is a rather important thing to regulate. It certainly was worth regulating when Ma Bell tried monopolizing communication protocols 50 years ago.
So tell us; what is worth fighting over? I'd be tickled pink to hear what consumer harms you'd prioritize over something as supposedly-diminutive as Apple's actions.
No the problem is not Apple refusing to join messaging standards. The problem is you thinking this is a problem worth fighting when there are many many many other more serious problems to address first.
Apples actions are not keeping people from living the one life they have. They are keeping people from having blue bubbles. Blue bubbles are not a necessity in life. Food, jobs, money, housing, these are all required.
Take that same energy and focus it on something that will let more people live instead of a nonissue. You are defocusing actual issues to solve a petty fight and force control. Stop.
If you continue to be blind, and focus nonissues, you are the problem.
> You are defocusing actual issues to solve a petty fight and force control. Stop.
> If you continue to be blind, and focus nonissues, you are the problem.
You are the one that has refused to furnish anything more important.
Also, somewhat obviously, food, jobs, money and housing are not distributed arbitrarily. Blue bubbles are.
It sounds like you're really upset over this whole thing, which is concerning once you consider how likely Apple is to lose their case here. Are you going to still be okay in the event that Apple is legislated for this behavior? Are you going to protest in the street against the DOJ for ignoring the real problems, like PB&J distribution at the local middle school?
> You are the one that has refused to furnish anything more important.
I have said many times what is required for life and therefore what is important. You even acknowledged it in your next sentence.
> Also, somewhat obviously, food, jobs, money and housing are not distributed arbitrarily. Blue bubbles are.
Wrong. We are not communist. Food is purchased and people with more money purchase better quality food. Apple iPhones in fact are just as cheap as Android phones. It’s a users choice to choose one or the other.
> It sounds like you're really upset over this whole thing
Yes, because I’m a veteran that has been to war for this country and this is what your generation focuses on? Do you feel like you’re wasting peoples lives at all? Do you feel like you’re wasting the gift given to you by everybody that has died for you? Because you are.
> Are you going to protest in the street
Protesting is a waste of time. You know what works? Having politicians on speed dial and calling them daily. So no I will not be protesting anything much less this. What I will do instead is focus on making housing cheaper and fixing wages not keeping up with inflation.
Again, stop defocusing the work of many thousands of people. Use your energy on solving anything required for life. Or have people like me fight your efforts and force refocusing on actual issues.
> HN tells me that there's only one more step left after embracing and extending.
Perhaps you should read HN less then. Along this line of thinking, any business adopting any open standard is a bad thing. Don't you think it's a very weird take?
> All they did was put an optional message service in the same app.
They did a bit more than that. There were the glory days that if you ever left the Apple ecosystem, but iMessage ever had an awareness of your number, no other iMessage users could reach you until or unless you did some incantations that Apple didn't make obvious, ideally from an Apple device (that you may not own anymore), to allow your friends to keep sending you even green bubble messages?
I know multiple people who had to go to Apple stores to try to do this process.
However, the same thing happened to me when I switched from my pixel 3a to an iPhone. I wasn't able to text from my iPhone for a week. I ended up contacting Verizon and they actually had their network engineers investigating. What they ended up discovering, and sent me a contact number for it, was that some how Google's RCS was still holding a lock on my number or something.
Maybe so; it doesn't really matter when you're looking at damages. It's Apple's job to solve interoperability with their own platform, and not only have they failed to provide SMS-levels of interop, they actively work against it to promote ulterior products. It's exactly the sort of anticompetitive bundling that harms the market without improving competition.
Maybe Ma Bell's success was in-part due to their free long-distance calls. It's kinda moot speculation when you look at their top-down business strategy though.
Nobody provides SMS levels of interop on unrestricted internet messaging platforms because the experience sucks.
Running the IM equivalent of an open SMTP relay is a ghastly experience for users. You literally have to gatekeep because the alternative is going back to circa-2000 levels of spam.
Deep down you know exactly what would happen because we’ve all lived it with spam voice calls again recently - we’ve been trying to reach you about your car’s warranty…
Destroying a working, positive experience on the apple platform and dragging it down to 2000s level is the explicit goal for a lot of people. The pain is the point - not to bring android up but simply to tear things down and walk away.
> You literally have to gatekeep because the alternative is going back to circa-2000 levels of spam.
The vast majority of spam is explicitly permitted by Google. What are you talking about? Do you not use e-mail? They have a Promotions tab, they could make spam - that is, marketing emails - go away in an afternoon, if they wanted to. They just don't, because those same companies are Google Ads customers.
Marketing email subscriptions you were tricked into signing up for isn't what people consider spam. In fact, Google provides a nice feature to unsubscribe from those without looking for a link in the email.
Now, the spam argument for iMessage makes little sense IMO - you're still going to get the same message via SMS. However, with Apple in charge, there is a chance that there will be some kind of "report + temporal ban" feature. Carriers have no incentive to create such feature.
> The vast majority of spam is explicitly permitted by Google. What are you talking about?
It is certainly not lmao - try sending mail to google from your own smtp server on your own doma
Seeing some spam occasionally doesn’t mean the vast majority isn’t being rej
> They have a Promotions tab, they could make spam - that is, marketing emails - go away in an afternoon, if they wanted to.
opting into newsletters is explicitly not spam, so either you don’t understand the basics of being on the internet or you’re arguing in bad faith.
Which is probably also implied by the “I saw a spam once therefore google runs an open SMTP relay” take honestly. You know that’s not true either. We both know you know. Why are you doing this?
again:
Google doesn’t provide your desired standard of openness either, in their own oligopolistic fiefs/gatekeeper domains like gmail. And everyone understand why it’s a bad idea. Forced open interop is an unworkable idea and forcing an unworkable idea on iMessage is the whole goal. Flooding iMessage with spam 2000s-style by forcing an “open relay” into the system is the whole point, whether you realize it or not.
Just like forcing “choice of browser” was never about giving users freedom either - but about wiping away the last counterbalance against chrome’s dominance/monopoly in the browser market. Hence the flood of shit like web integrity and adtech ever since.
C'mon. Signing up for a store to buy a thing doesn't grant permission to bother me with a newsletter, you very frequently just can't opt out until they've sent you something.
That's the "I'm not touching you" of compliance and spam-in-spirit should have a mudhole stomped into it--and yet does not.
Store newsletters that you sign up for are not spam. Nobody is making you click the "allow marketing emails" checkboxes. If they do it anyway, yes, that's spam, but that's not what actually happens.
You sound like me, when I was 22 and worked on a virtual slot machine game, trying to convince people that a virtual slot machine game was a real game in some sense.
Anyway, I think what everyone wants is an email tab called “Personal and Transactional,” which would omit all emails of all other categories, including marketing or spam or whatever you want to call it. And even then, I find it so fucking annoying that my ISP and my bank sends me marketing emails via its transactional domains, obviously with the blessing of Google, because people mark those as spam and yet their domains are not blocked. Google already has the capability to do this easily, and chooses not to because email marketers are part of their customer ecosystem.
> Nobody provides SMS levels of interop on unrestricted internet messaging platforms because the experience sucks.
Maybe Apple should lead the charge on that, or instead they'll be forced to use something truly godawful like OMEMO or RCS. I'd prefer they didn't, but it would be pretty funny if they were forced down that path in the long-run. It takes a haughty spirit before the fall.
> Destroying a working, positive experience on the apple platform and dragging it down to 2000s level is the explicit goal for a lot of people.
A more believable motive than being one of the millions of non-Apple customers that are subject to using an inferior messaging standard? Apple made their bed by believing they could proprietate a public resource; now you've got to lie in it because you're their customer. Frankly I (and regulators) could care less what iMessage looks like once it's all done. It's apparently not our platform.
Exactly. Apple has more influence over the cellular industry in America than any single company including the carriers themselves.
They could completely design the spec by themselves with all the pro-consumer features that one could imagine including things like distributed spam filtering and then force the carriers to adopt it either by using the stick (force adoption by X date or lose the iPhone) or the carrot (shift proprietary iMessage features to the new standard so that users demand the carrier adopt it -- basically green bubble any carrier that doesn't use the standard). No other company in the country could do this.
But of course, complete control over a proprietary iMessage protocol that they can lock competitors out of is apart of the business strategy.
Why shackled to SMS?
I don't have an iPhone don't use iMessager and haven't sent a SMS in the past 10 years.
Everything these days is What'sApp / Telegram / Signal
I’m torn on this. Where does it stop? Must Apple open up every single part of the phone because of their scale? Should it allow access to the raw data of FaceID? Does it have to provide an alternative to OS notifications? Does every single feature have to be cross platform?
I’d argue that a much more urgent matter is opening up “accounts” so that they can never lock and delete my online data without recourse. This is way more important than iMessage on Android, to which there are plenty of options already.
If you don't "let business decide on these things", the result isn't better more communal solutions getting made, the result is no solutions getting made because they're not worth making for the business.
You'd be a lot closer to the truth if Apple didn't spend the last 10 years of their corporate existence resisting message standardization like it was a plague. There were alternatives, even solutions Apple found acceptable, but they refused to adopt them.
Better question; why allow them access to the market if their only intention is to abuse it?
Apple can create whatever they want, but they're going to get the scrutiny they deserve. iMessage should be an on-ramp to better communications for everyone; instead it's become the flaming symbol of Apple's deliberate negligence. This is absolutely the point regulators should be stepping in and ensuring Apple isn't headed down an anti-consumer pathway that ensures market harm.
Companies shouldn't be expected to individually make suboptimal decisions in order to preserve the health of the market. They should be regulated by a functioning government.
Let's just say that the government decided in the year 2005 that no private company can ship something that will replace SMS as the defacto messaging system because it wants interoperability.
We would have never had iMessage, Whatsapp, Messenger, etc. Other countries would have far surpassed us in messaging communication tech.
It doesn't have to be "you can't replace SMS" because that would be stifling to innovation. It could simply be "messaging protocols should be open and/or interoperable".
The web is what it is today because its open. The telephone network is what it is today because its interoperable. Imagine if the web was bifurcated based on the operating system you wanted to use (that was Microsoft's vision in the late 90s and early 00s: to create a large section of the web that required Windows). Imagine if a Verizon customer had a limited feature set when calling an AT&T customer (like the inability to leave a voicemail for instance). No one would tolerate these things. But yet people will argue in favor of this with messaging (as long as its Apple doing it)
> It doesn't have to be "you can't replace SMS" because that would be stifling to innovation. It could simply be "messaging protocols should be open and/or interoperable".
It doesn't seem the same, but that's effectively also stifling to innovation.
For one thing, if the whole reason something like iMessage got created was to ensure an Apple monopoly, if they couldn't use it to do that, they just wouldn't build it, not build it open instead.
For another, what does "open and interoperable" even mean? There isn't necessarily a defined protocol for these things already. So who would come up with one? Almost certainly, the big companies would have to be involved, and they could steer the standard to benefit themselves, even just by making it closer to something they've already built (which makes total technical sense too - of course you want to base the protocol on existing tech!).
But that means that compliance is much harder for smaller companies, which would mean you're giving a huge advantage to a big player anyway.
As opposed to the no-regulation world, in which Whatsapp was a startup that could do whatever it wanted, and ended up being the default messaging platform that half the world uses.
SMTP, IMAP and POP did not prevent gmail or outlook from launching products
2G/3G/4G/5g did not hinder the mobile industry it only fostered it .
Standard payment interface like UPI did not stop apps for payments being built , India didn’t need a Venmo or WeeChat to innovate here before standardization
Innovations happen despite or without regulations if there is market demand for it . FRAND patents exist for a reason.
I can’t think of any common example where interoperability killed innovation
That's a poor option to regulate from. They could just as easily have required messaging apps to make their protocols open, allowing for competition in the app space messaging over them and not facing lock in.
So what's the financial incentive for companies to develop & maintain open standard messaging protocols? For example, I'm sure it costs Meta a pretty penny to facilitate messages with central servers, store historical messages, and pay engineers to maintain and develop new features. If they have then be forced to open up Messenger for free, they might not have started Messenger in the first place.
Also, SMS is the open protocol so we have at least one interoperable standard for people to choose from.
So... Meta might not choose to develop a messenger? Or maybe they would choose to use someone else's system (since again it's open and interoperable)? I'm sorry, where's the issue here?
We had lots of progress despite regulation of technical standards in the past. And the regulation doesn’t have to force a particular communication protocol, it could simply be forcing a separation between hardware and communication providers.
bad example? you can book hotels etc on AirBnB and everybody offers listing services which crosspost across the booking sites. There are few exclusives in the travel industry.
It's almost like having the rental market controlled by Airbnb instead of myriad local hotels is a bad thing
(Or to take another example of the operate-blatantly-illegally-until-you-bribe-your-way-to-legalization and loss-lead-til-monopoly industry, it's almost like having the taxi market controlled by Uber and Lyft instead of myriad local cab companies is a bad thing)
(Or to bring it back to the point of the thread, it's almost like having the mobile phone app market controlled by Apple and Google is a bad thing)
I’m struggling to see what’s wrong with Federighi’s argument. Why should he not want to protect Apple’s position? Apple has no monopoly on mobile messaging or hardware, and they didn’t 8 years ago either, so they can do what they like here.
What is Apple supposed to do? Spend time and money on interop to better the lives of Android users? There’s nothing wrong with them doing so if they like, but I fail to see any obligation they have.
You’re going to have to be much more specific if you want to make any sense. All cell phones can already call other cell phones. All cell phones can already message other cell phones.
You ignore that for a while that actually wasn't the case. If you left the Apple ecosystem, for multiple years the steps to get your number/account disassociated from iMessage so your contacts could reach you by SMS again were not default, not obvious, and not disclosed.
what "correct thing"? i can text people who use android phones just fine. TBH this all boils down to the ridiculous blue / green bubble thing. that's the ONLY difference in texting between devices. i honestly have no clue why apple would be regulated in any way over this!
> China Mobile, China Telecom and China Unicom yesterday (8 April) released a 5G messaging white paper outlining their commitment to mandate all compatible handsets sold in the country support Rich Communication Services (RCS).
> They obviously have no motivation to do the correct thing, so the solution is government regulation.
The solution to what? Apple supports SMS/MMS. They've pre-announced (something they rarely do) RCS support. They support VoLTE for HD voice calls.
Let's say the federal government eminent-domains iMessage protocols. Then what? Do you really think Apple's just going to carry traffic from untrusted devices, and for free?
Lots of Apple customers wanted the ability to send and receive rich media messages with their friends and family on Android devices. What they got instead was a monopolist who insisted on being able to monetize both sides of every human interaction.
> “iMessage on Android would simply serve to remove an obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones.”
This statement says a few extra things that Craig Federighi probably didn't realize he was saying.
1) It suggests that the iPhone wouldn't be able to hold its own in a market where interoperability with Android was easier. That demonstrates a lack of faith in it.
2) I've noticed that any time a corporation starts to clutch its fingers around its flagship product and make it less open, it starts to die. Oh sure, there's an upfront benefit perhaps in sales, but you're literally selling the future of your thing to profit from it today, by doing this.
> It suggests that the iPhone wouldn't be able to hold its own in a market where interoperability with Android was easier
It is just a statement of the obvious. Price tends to trump every other consideration, unless the difference is pretty big. See also airline ticket pricing and the race to the bottom in comfort & features. If there is no differentiator, a lot of people will just get Android phones because they cost less. They'll put up with quite a lot of abuse as long as they save a few bucks. It'd probably end up like gmail.
> It is just a statement of the obvious. Price tends to trump every other consideration, unless the difference is pretty big.
But, huge swaths of the public regularly pay much more than the minimum required to have better:
• Cars
• Clothing
• Restaurants
• Theater seats
These are just the first few that come to mind.
Now, is the difference between high- and low-end clothing "pretty big"? I guess it depends on what you mean, but both will fundamentally cover your body.
For airlines, people just want to get from point A to point B, and nothing else really matters at the end of the day. Even on higher end airlines, flying is unlikely to be a truly pleasant experience, unless maybe you pay almost an order of magnitude more for first class or something. People just want to get it over with.
I mean, I think we're saying the same thing here. But whereas I feel you're framing this as a "bug" in how consumers operate, I think they're behaving quite logically. People will pay more for things they actually care about. When they don't care, they choose the cheapest option.
Regarding No 2. That is very true but it is astounding just how much inertia is in the system that keeps iPhone going.
Turns out that the curated experience of iPhone combined with a lot of fumbles from various android vendors has kept iPhone image of being the best and most desirable phone.
It is very vaguely feeling like if another big player was to come in they could actually make some waves that causes everyone else to jump. To the benefit of the users. But I doubt that will happen.
Well, I've been an iPhone user since the OG iPhone until 2017 when I've switched to the first gen Pixel. I stopped liking the iOS look & feel when the home button got removed.
At that time, the only thing to keep me on the iPhone was iMessage - not that I didn't want to be a green bubble, it just the SMS experience sucks in general, RCS wasn't a thing you could use at that time. However, once I've met my future ex-wife, that stopped being an issue because we used fb messenger to talk.
Fast-forward to summer 2023, I'm in a process of divorce, watching Apple event. Get possessed by Steve Jobs, pause presentation, order new iPhone and Apple Watch Ultra for self-pickup, finish watching the presentation, drive to pick up my new phone and watch. Quick migration and up and running.
Android (Pixel) Pros:
- back button, the thing I knew I will miss a lot
- all pixel exclusive features like call screening
- I prefer stock android control center
- sideloading (i've made my own reddit client for android tv and used it for loooong time)
- kotlin > objc (irrelevant since swift)
- fingerprint scanner on the back of a phone was a genius decision
Android (Pixel) Cons:
- google inconsistent web interfaces
- apps have much lower quality
- Google wants you to use Chrome Cast, so you can connect your phone to a monitor
- Most non-stock android makes me want to vomit, specially Samsung
- Google didn't know how to position Pixel (is it a flagship? is it a mid-level? is it a low-end? wtf was pixel 5?)
- Watch experience is meh
- under screen fingerprint scanners suck
- Wired Android Auto sent me to therapy a few times (jk, but it was frustrating)
iPhone Pros:
- Apps better quality
- Better watch integration
- iMessage (won't elaborate)
- AirPods switching experience is near damn perfect
- idk just look and feel subjectively better
- Wireless Car Play easier to find than Wireless Android Auto
iPhone Cons:
- control center, so many times I've turned off wifi or bt instead of what I wanted to do
This conversation happened 8 years ago and it was about a product released 12 years ago. If anything, this shows how slow regulators are before they take any action and how they are effectively contributing to building the garden walls, through inaction.