Minority phone maker? Apple is the biggest corporation on earth...and make up the majority of smart phone sales in the US. Yes they would have to give up a competitive advantage. That's the point.

Yes. They are, by the plain meaning of the words, a minority player in mobile phone sales globally by a HUGE margin. The most recent data for 2021 suggest that sales for last were split pretty evenly in the US, but overall usage still heavily favors Android.

They DO have a much bigger footprint in some desirable segments of that market, but overall they're a minority player. By definition, minority players do not enjoy any monopolistic power. They are under no obligation to give up any competitive advantage until and unless they exhibit true, market-manipulating monopolistic behavior.

They are #2 globally, behind Samsung. 15.2% of the global smartphone market to Samsung's 20.8%. They are #1 in the US, 47% to Samsung's 34%. That is a dominant position. Apple would be wise to avoid the appearance of abusing that position and inviting regulatory oversight.

I guess another way to look at it is by platform dominance though. Android is 85% globally. Apple is only a majority in some English speaking countries. And even then they barely have a majority. It’s a fairly even split between Apple and Android.

Most people I know are brand agnostic but platform loyal. Google could have captured half of all English speaking countries and 85% globally if not for their incompetence. They still could since here we are complaining about Google’s messaging apps.

You're cherrypicking by conflating "manufacturer" with "operating system."

Yes, Apple has a bigger market share than ONE Android handset maker. But if you compare by platform, iOS is, in the US, more or less even with Android. Globally, it remains a small minority.

47% of a market is NOT a dominant position. It's a GOOD position, but it's not strong enough to control the market in ways that typically produce antitrust interest.

Just because they don’t have a majority share of global sales doesn’t make them a “minority player”. That’s not really what that term means. The term “minority player” means they have less influence/importance than the “major players”.

Though, to be fair I can see how that could be confusing (because English).

Wow, that's a rhetorical mess! "Minority doesn't mean minority" is some serious doublethink.

iOS is a minority player in the mobile phone market by a wide margin globally, and by a small margin in the US.

End of.

I really think you're conflating the (subjective) expression about an entity being a "major/minor player" with the factual claim of a company having a majority or minority marketshare. They're different, but you're treating them the same. Hence, confusion.

Major Player: an important and successful company, especially when compared with other, smaller companies in the same type of business or industry. Source https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/major-pl...

Ergo, the vast majority of people would agree that Apple is a "major player" in the phone industry despite having a "minority marketshare".

PS. There's nothing wrong with the point you're making, I'm only pointing out that its confusing to others because of the terminology you're using.

They are not a minority player in the US, which is what we are talking about. That's like arguing Facebook isn't a monopoly becaues it doesn't exist in China. It's a nonsense argument.

Pretty sure OP meant that they're a minority in terms of market share. The number of Android phones being used is probably 5x that of iPhones.

There is nothing stopping Apple from implementing RCS. They can continue to go their own way with Apple devices, and support RCS for interop with non-Apple devices and for users who would rather not route their messaging through Apple.

That they choose not to support a standard protocol as a competitive advantage is exactly the problem.

Imagine if you bought a 4K television that had AppleTV built in, and then you find out that the 4K feature is only available if you use the built in AppleTV interface, and HDMI is limited to 1080P.

There is a case to be made that such anti-competitive behavior is illegal.

a) RCS is not a standard and doesn't support end to end encryption. Apple has every right not to bother implementing it.

b) There is no such case that such behaviour is illegal or that it is impacting competition in the messaging space. The fact that WhatsApp, Telegram, Kakao, Line etc are so popular is indicative of this fact.

RCS is a carrier standard. It does not support end-to-end encryption. No one is suggesting that Apple stop allowing Apple users to communicate via iMessage. WhatsApp and friends are not baked in as the default messaging app in the dominant smartphone platform. Remember the Microsoft antitrust charges? It seems silly now, but there was a case made then and there is a similar case to be made here.

> Remember the Microsoft antitrust charges? It seems silly now, but there was a case made then and there is a similar case to be made here.

Microsoft was accused of using their Windows monopoly to put Netscape out of business. Which monopoly is Apple using to what end, and who are they putting out of business? Microsoft’s behaviour resulted in the Great Web Stagnation in the late 1990s and early 2000s, but there is nothing of the sort here. Facebook, WhatsApp, Signal, Discord, and Telegram seem to be doing ok. So who is being harmed here?

I don’t buy the RCS argument. RCS is insecure and inferior to all the platforms I mentioned, and pushed only by carriers (who I am sure have the users’ interests at heart) and Google.

Also, if we follow your logic, Apple needs to authorise other apps to process SMSes. That would be the equivalent to Microsoft letting users change the default browser. Microsoft was never forced to port IE to any other platform.

> RCS is a carrier standard.

Are carriers clamoring for Apple to implement RCS? If they are, what are they offering Apple? And if they are and have been lobbying for Apple to implement RCS, then is it possible work has already begun for a future OS release and we just don’t know about it because they haven’t announced that release yet or it’s not far enough along?

I have this vague impression that the carriers don’t particularly care about RCS themselves, and so Apple wouldn’t have any reason to care either. Maybe I’m wrong on both counts.

Neither does SMS...

The difference is that SMS is a dumb, text-only format with no features. And so it made it easy for people to switch to WhatsApp, iMessage etc as they could easily offer compelling features.

RCS has a lot of those compelling features and so would be able to take market share away from those proprietary apps.

Great right ? Well no because RCS is unencrypted specifically so that carriers and governments can read your messages.

>Imagine if you bought a 4K television that had AppleTV built in, and then you find out that the 4K feature is only available if you use the built in AppleTV interface, and HDMI is limited to 1080P.

That would be a very bad product design decision. I would realize that I had made a bad purchase and I would return the TV to the store and buy one that didn't do that. There are lots and lots of TVs to choose from. On the other hand, if you really like AppleTV, you might not care. Either way, it is the consumer's choice, so no harm. Lots of TVs have features people don't like.

>There is a case to be made that such anti-competitive behavior is illegal.

No there isn't. iOS is a minority platform (globally) by a very large number. Also, there are a number of app based messaging options, many of which are quite popular and some use strong encryption.

You're first point is well made, however I don't have any other choice when I communicate with an Apple user. Everything is so siloed these days. The lack of federated protocols harms us all.

You're second point is irrelavant. Apple is a US company and iOS is the dominant majority mobile platform in the US. I live in the US and I am discussing this as a domestic issue as it relates to me and the laws of my country. We wouldn't be having this discussion if iMessage was just another messaging app alongside the default SMS app.

Okay, but there is no iMessage app, it is a protocol available to Messages users. Messages is the default SMS app and it defaults to using SMS. If a user ops in to iMessage, they get E2E and the other iMessage goodies. If they don't opt in, it does SMS and MMS. Even opted in, it does SMS and MMS to non iMessage users. So, the user has the choice to participate in iMessage the protocol or stick with SMS. Both options are available within the default SMS app.

The question here is whether Apple should be forced to implement RCS. They aren't stopping anyone from communicating since SMS and MMS are available. I suspect if RCS gains enough traction, Apple might add that capability for non iMessage users. I don't know that of course, but I wouldn't be surprised. iMessage still has many advantages over RCS for in-ecosystem users so it wouldn't harm them to add it. Time will tell I guess.

Such a case could ONLY be made if my local big-box retailer wasn't absolutely overflowing with TVs made by other manufacturers that feature no such restriction.

Are you really suggesting that Apple be FORCED to support this older, insecure, less useful RCS protocol instead of iMessage? That's absurd.

You are describing anti-competitive behavior: Harming their own customers and others to protect marketshare.

A messaging platform is for communication, not just for the individual customer.

No, I am very clearly not.

Everything a company does to protect its position isn't "anticompetitive behavior." That term has a specific meaning in US law, and applies generally only to situations where market manipulation is being attempted (or committed) by a monopolist or a consortium of firms large enough to act as one.

See

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/anticompetitive-practices

Neither of those situations applies to iOS and iMessage.