> I am concerned [that] iMessage on Android would simply serve to remove an obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones.<p>We're an iPhone family, but damn is that lame. How about: make the best product. Don't coerce people into buying an iPhone.<p>It drives me crazy how fractured messaging has become. Here's a recent example. My non-technical aunt tried to send a group iMessage to my wife and me. For me, she used an email address tied to my iMessage account. But for my wife, she used her Google Voice #. Now what you need to understand is that iMessage allows you to associate one or more email addresses with your account, but only a single phone #, which has to be your carrier-assigned #.<p>So now she's trying to send an iMessage to my email address (which would have shown up in blue) and my wife's Google Voice # (which would have shown up in green).<p>Well, here's what apparently happened. iMessage handed this off as an MMS to Verizon. Verizon's MMS gateway sent me the message via email, as a text attachment. My wife got the message in the Google Voice app on her phone.<p>What an f'ing mess.<p>I've turned off "Send as SMS" and "MMS Messaging" on my iPhone so I don't make this same stupid mistake.<p>I'd use WhatsApp for everything, but, Facebook. (I tried Signal. I found it to be pretty sub-par for everyday messaging.)
It would be a fantastic outcome of this case if the use of closed standards and lack of integration APIs in a high-market-share product gave rise to a presumption of monopolistic practices. That is obviously what drives the lack of integration points with iMessage and other messaging services, but right now there is no consequence. If it were codified, even in a court precedent, it might be enough to get these systems to start playing nicely again. Remember the days when you could write a client that would connect to most online chat services? I want those days back.<p>(To be clear, I guess this is wishful thinking. But I would be happy if it came to pass.)<p>Even better would be a requirement to provide interoperability APIs at a legislative level, but I guess that will be a long time coming.
Like many others, I switched from iOS to Android during a time when it (edit: this transition process) was most fraught with very unexpected failure modes. I remember being absolutely incredulous that anyone thought this experience reflected positively on Apple in any way-- it seemed incompetent at best, and had a strong stink of maliciousness to boot.<p>I've always seen this as major bungle on their part, and it's one of many reasons I will never go back to their not-so-safe walled garden by choice.
> ‘Do we want to lose one of the most important apps in a mobile environment to Google?’<p>Little did Cue know how determined Google was to fumble messaging over the next decade.
The reason for not bringing iMessage to Android was because parents could just buy cheap Android handsets for their kids. First of all, why not create a product for that niche (nevermind, we're talking about Apple). But what actually bothers me is the weak mindset. I remember when Apple didn't have such concerns because they were certain that they have the best product and people would buy for that reason. This is going on across the board at Apple it'll eventually lead to its IBMification.
The instant messaging market is such an utter failure of competitive market economics. There hasn't been a single worthwhile innovation in like 25 years yet there is intense competition over who owns the proprietary protocols. Text vs data is also an entirely contrived competition.
Not only did Apple miss an opportunity to own global messaging, Google could have done the same if they had designed Allo with SMS fallback similar to iMessage.<p>I have no idea what they were thinking with Allo, but they blew one of the easiest layups I’ve ever seen.
They would have captured 100% of the messaging market.<p>Reminds me of '90s *Nix companies with sales bros wanting to sling around overpriced hardware, preventing expansion of the company in other fronts.
I find it ironic in a lawsuit over Apple's supposed dominance, that Epic is claiming that executives shot down a plan that as Cue puts it "that iMessage should expand to Android to cement Apple’s hold on messaging apps".
More relevant to the article—does anyone know what Epic plans to argue from this finding? Honestly, I could interpret not bringing iMessage to Android as being decidely anti-monopolistic; they actively tried to avoid capturing the entire market. I’m sure that is not what this evidence is intended to show though.
I feel like I'm the only iPhone user that barely makes use of iMessage. All my chat communications is done via Google Hangouts (or whatever they call it these days), WhatsApp, or Kakao (I'm Korean). I think I have exactly one friend who I use iMessage with.<p>Then again, half my friends are Android users, so...
> The line of questioning is likely to play a significant role in Epic’s antitrust lawsuit, which argues that iOS app store exclusivity represents an illegal use of market power. Epic has made clear in previous filings that it plans to make iMessage exclusivity part of that argument, citing a 2016 email from Phil Schiller that argues iMessage expansion “will hurt us more than help us.”<p>This seems weirdly irrelevant. If Epic is arguing that not allowing other app stores onto iPhones is hurting consumers, I don't understand the relevance of Apple software on non-Apple phones. I mean, say Epic wins their case, and so Apple needs to support side-loading. The court still can't force Apple to port iMessage to other devices.
I think they could differentiate with privacy. Privacy is the ultimate silver bullet that could kill Android, because the Google's business model is built around lack of privacy. If iMessage could elevate privacy awareness and expectations, then it's possible that people would want to switch to iPhone.