While I'm also in favor of Apple doing something, anything really, that's better than the frustrating status quo, I could see how blunt/incompetent regulation might weaken encryption.

I've been wondering if we can already see the foreshadows of Apple's next move, actually: CKV is already only possible between modern (iOS 17.2 or macOS 14.2 and above only) devices, and their RCS implementation will presumably not be end-to-end encrypted.

I could see them opening up "legacy iMessage" (i.e. non-CKV, non-ephermerally-encrypted) and integrating RCS, but assigning new color to "modern iMessage" exclusively. That would credibly count as opening up their service, while still preserving a distinguishing feature for Apple devices, and even nudging people to upgrade some old devices.

Because usually precedents are not so narrow as to apply towards trillion dollar companies only, and even if they are they can be expanded upon. If you would be against a trillion dollar company forcing a small competitor to open up, you should rightly be worried about allowing the reverse, because the principles by which they justify it are unlikely to discern based on company size.

I (mostly) do favor government intervention with Apple, but you make a good point. Originally the income tax was only to apply to the uber mega rich. It didn't take long for it to apply to all the middle class too.

Yes, that's a fair point, but it hinges on the law being weak and poorly worded. Obviously I would not be happy with that either. But loopholes like that are a risk with any action that the market or the government would take, and ideally I would like the government to make a strong, well-worded law that accomplishes only the original intent, which can and does happen frequently as well.

The trick is finding justifiable, reasonable reasons that don't cause havoc with our economic system, which IMO necessitates they they not target an arbitrary employee size or specific market percentage, or revenue. What is "large" is very relative, and not just by individual opinion, but temporally. What was a large company just 70 years years ago is nothing compared to those of today.

As much as I would like to see Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft and the like not have so much power (socially, economically, most likely at the government level as well), I think the only way we'll actually make any progress towards the problems that allow large companies like that and allow their negative consequences is to attack some of the specific aspects of our current system they abuse to their benefit, and not them specifically.

For example, very strict privacy laws and control over tracking to curtail the biggest problems of the data companies, laws about control over your own devices and what you do on them (software) and with them (repair) for the hardware companies, etc. Otherwise we'll just see some other company take up the same practice and have all the same problems.

Why let them intervene? The government isn't there to cure all ills, nor should we want it to be. This seems like something the market can handle. Messenging systems have come and gone (ICQ, AIM, MSN, Yahoo Messenger, Blackberry, etc., etc., etc.). They've been locked to hardware, semi-open, and completely open. There will be dozens more, all with their own benefits and drawbacks. Fortunately, not one is required for any part of life.

> Why let them intervene?

Because it would be the most sure-fire way to be certain that it actually gets done, whereas "the market" is less certain and prone to manipulation tactics such as lock-in. Returning to my original question that you kind of dodged, why not let them intervene?