> The company “undermines” the ability of iPhone users to message with owners of other types of smartphones, like those running the Android operating system, the government said. That divide — epitomized by the green bubbles that show an Android owner’s messages — sent a signal that other smartphones were lower quality than the iPhone, according to the lawsuit.
I read that as 'interop' is a secondary issue, if an issue at all; the actual case is the green/blue segregation. If Apple embedded a fingerprint in every interoperable message and shown blue messages for iMessage-sent content, green background for others, it'd still be a problem even if messages are otherwise identical - unless all the features truly work on both, in which case the color split is purely status signaling.
> “The #1 most difficult [reason] to leave the Apple universe app is iMessage ... iMessage amounts to serious lock-in,” was how one unnamed former Apple employee put it in an email in 2016 > “iMessage on Android would simply serve to remove [an] obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones,” https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/9/22375128/apple-imessage-an...
Not getting on board with RCS or any other way to improve SMS/MMS until they were (implicitly) forced was motivated by that desire to lock their users in to a messaging platform that only works on Apple devices.
Except that's not why the blue/green difference was created (at least historically).
It dates back to the time where SMS messages cost money for each one sent (though plans often came with x free messages), so the green message was telling you it was (potentially) costing you money when sending/receiving messages. (US$ = greenbacks -> green = cost)
But perhaps the courts would want to weaken security. It’s definitely a thorn in their side.
If so, I'd almost be thankful to Apple for letting me know who not to bother being friends with.
If someone in my social circle ostracized someone else because of their phone, they (the person doing the ostracizing) wouldn't be in my social circle anymore.
my friend group has a separate group chat for just android users and they get party invites after the main group does.
I have never heard of this actually happening outside of when iPhone is a topic on HN. I don't really have other social media, so that might be a part of it. But in real life? Never once experienced this, or even know someone who has.
my friend group has a separate group chat for just android users and they get party invites after the main group does.
This makes no sense to me. You exclude some portion of your friends because your text bubble is green instead of blue? Why?
Imagine in 2010 you meet a potential romantic partner and they say, "Hey! Add me on Facebook!" And you reply, "Oh, I'm not on Facebook... can we just talk on the phone instead?" The person may go, "Oh, umm... sure, I guess." But then you never connect because you haven't made it as easy as possible; you've introduced a tiny amount of friction that a lot of people are just not willing to tolerate. If everyone else is on Facebook, why aren't you?
In real life, it creates so much friction that yes, there is pressure to buy an iPhone and change your entire software ecosystem just to fit in and remove this barrier to relationships. It's just text messaging; it's ancient technology at this point and no company should have a monopoly on it in any form. At a minimum they should let other operating systems download iMessage—show them ads, charge a fee, I don't know. But creating a hardware-enforced wall around basic telecommunication is wrong.
I do not understand how the color of a chat bubble creates friction. I text Android friends the same way I text iPhone friends. We exchange phone numbers, then we text each other.
This is beyond ridiculous. All of my group chats that need to be cross-platform just move to Facebook Messenger or WhatsApp
Eye to eye encryption?
Remove the color from the equation entirely, and what do you think would happen when someone without an iPhone joins a group chat? Do you think everyone would ignore the change completely, even though it would mean they'd lose all the iMessage features that SMS/MMS group texts lack? Or do you think they'd just be more frustrated about it because it's harder to tell when it's happening, but treat people the same?
Do you really think it has anything to do with the color of the bubbles, rather than the fact that SMS's featureset is much smaller than iMessage's?
I'm not going to try to deny that there are some people who a) would shun (ex?)friends for using an Android phone, and b) continue to shun them even once the actual reason for that goes away, because Lord there are some petty, shallow people in the world.
I am going to say that I don't think it's Apple's or the government's business to try to fix that problem. If the government wants to force Apple to open up iMessage in some fashion, I think that's potentially reasonable, but holding Apple responsible for the cruelty and cliquishness of what must be a tiny subset of its users is just absurd.
Intent (often?) matters:
The green bubbles came first.
iMessage didn't even exist for the first few years of the iPhone's life. All messages were green. Green could not have been chosen to indicate it cost money, because there was nothing to distinguish it from.
Then, in 2011 (IIRC), iMessage was introduced, and the blue bubbles were to indicate both that it doesn't cost money, and that it supports several other capabilities (which have changed over the years—IIRC, it did not start out with end-to-end encryption, so the people boldly asserting that that's the primary reason for the distinction are also wrong).
The green/blue bubble thing is irrelevant. It reflects a fundamental reality of the platform technology.
Short version: SMS has been green since the first iPhone, blue iMessage was added later. Green was not invented to "punish the poors"
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/08/a-decade-and-a-half-...
No, but blue was only given to the first class citizens.
The other points seem much more specific and actionable.
The smartwatch point is interesting and not an argument I've seen made before, but it's a very good example of Apple's vendor lock-in.