> Do you prefer not being able to send or recieve good quality images and videos to anyone using Android?

Bit confused by this. What prevents me from sending or receiving good quality images to/from Android users?

When friends with iPhones send me images or videos using iMessage, they are very low-quality compared to what iPhone users receive. But when Android users send me the same, they are higher quality.

So I think the specific answer to your question is "iMessage and its lack of support for <protocol (RCS?)>".

> So I think the specific answer to your question is "iMessage and its lack of support for <protocol (RCS?)>".

But there are other ways to send images or arbitrary files. Why does iMessage need to support it?

Cause it would be better for Apple's customers. This one doesn't even have the "my parents security" defense like installing non app store apples does. Do you honestly think any costumer WANTS iPhone to be shitty at sending images?

Why do you have to defend every little thing that Apple does as if you were their lawyer? I get that you like some parts of their walled garden, but why do Apple stans behave as if Apple was a sacred company that could do no wrong, when there examples like this that they are literally harming their own customers to protect their moat. I get why Apple does it, I don't get why anyone here would side with Apple.

You're conflating things. What some people might want Apple to do is different from what Apple should be legally obligated to do.

If someone doesn't like the fact that the Messages app doesn't support <X>, they should not buy an iPhone then, if it's that important to them.

Pretty simple calculus. Apple made a choice, and then they can suffer the consequences of a lost sale because of that choice.

When I send photos to an android user, I just use a different method. it really is not a big deal.

> Why does iMessage need to support it?

imessage (the protocol) doesn't. iPhones should, because it's a common way for people to communicate. It was fine for us to start laissez faire but now that we see Apple abusing things by not interoperating -- deliberately in order to sell more phones [1], the people should intervene.

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/9/22375128/apple-imessage-an...

> "The #1 most difficult [reason] to leave the Apple universe app is iMessage ... iMessage amounts to serious lock-in"

> "moving iMessage to Android will hurt us more than help us, this email illustrates why."

> imessage (the protocol) doesn't. iPhones should, because it's a common way for people to communicate.

iPhones are fully capable of transmitting images (and even other types of files--what an amazing world we live in). Feel free to install any of the numerous apps available that allow you to do this.

I never said iMessage needs to support anything, I was merely answering a question that I thought was asked in good faith.

The US government claims that Apple is engaging in anticompetitive practices by degrading the behavior of iMessage when communicating to non-Apple devices.

Your stance seems to be, this should not be something for the government to be involved in, let the market decide.

This is ambiguous. Perhaps you believe that US antitrust laws shouldn't exist, or should be changed so they don't apply to this case, or actually don't apply to this case (ie the government is wrong that Apple's behavior violates the law).

Those are all coherent stances you could have, though I think it would be helpful if you identified which of them you hold if you want to engage in meaningful discourse with others.

My understanding is that Apple wont add RCS support until end-to-end encryption is part of the RCS standard, which it currently isn't. And they wont use property add-ons such as what Google use for encryption.

Competitors stuffed around trying to build a competitor for over a decade and failed. Is that Apple's fault?

By default was missing from the sentence. You can do it with Whatsapp etc, but both you and the other party need to download a 3rd party app to do so.

> By default was missing from the sentence. You can do it with Whatsapp etc, but both you and the other party need to download a 3rd party app to do so.

So... what?

It's an obvious abuse of their monopoly to suppress competition. Most kids use iPhone and for the general public in the US iPhone has >50% market share, so to expect most people to stop using iMessage to get better support with Android users is not happening, and it's silly to think that will change without a change in laws, so most kids end up getting iPhones so they're not left out.

Remember, this is all a very arbitrary restriction by Apple that lets them take advantage of their monopoly to suppress sales of competitive products. That's the illegal part.

2.6 billion WhatsApp users exist. All switched from native SMS to a third-party app (WhatsApp). Clearly this expectation is fine.

Part of that is that outside the US, iPhone isn't as dominant in the market, so their anticompetitive tactics don't work as well.

Nobody uses iMessage outside the US, by choice, even in iPhone-dominated markets. So clearly it's possible to avoid it. US iPhone users have the same choice.

Do you have an example of a place that has a similar rate of usage for iPhones but primarily uses WhatsApp for texting? In the US the rate is 87% for teenagers, I'm surprised it's that high elsewhere.

I don’t as I don’t know the numbers, but note also the US is a rich country.

Bear in mind that WhatsApp adoption is often driven by the costs involved with SMS especially when sending to an international number.

WhatsApp also enable free international voip calls.

iMessage and FaceTime Audio are also free.

iPhone has 51% market share in Japan across all age group[1] (and even as high as 84.8% in some demographic[2]). From my 5 years of living here, I’ve never seen anyone use iMessage even once. The dominant messaging app is LINE.

[1]: https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prAP51933524

[2]: https://japantoday.com/category/tech/study-shows-iphone-the-...

Seems like LINE became the predominant app way back in 2012 (it released even before iMessage did in 2011), so my guess is that it took hold before iMessage ever had a chance, unlike in the US where texting was always the main way to communicate on phones up until iMessage integrated texting to absorb all those users.

> It's an obvious abuse of their monopoly to suppress competition.

Apple has a monopoly on what, exactly?

Let me answer. Apple has a monopoly on iPhones.

Just like Chevy has a monopoly on Corvettes and Ford has a monopoly on Mustangs.

> Remember, this is all a very arbitrary restriction by Apple

What are they restricting? I am still unclear. Their choosing not to do something is not restricting anything.

> that lets them take advantage of their monopoly to suppress sales of competitive products.

And we're right again back to them having a monopoly on iPhones.

You ever notice you can -use tires from arbitrary manufacturers -use oil from arbitrary manufacturers -drive to arbitrary locations (even offroad in your Corvette) -use nearly arbitrary accessories -use a universal port to get error codes (OBD-II) -make modifications and keep your warranty on unrelated parts

Ask yourself, would MacOs have all of the restrictions an iPhone has? If not even Macbooks block installation of 3rd party applications, why does it change when you add a cell radio?

Honestly,if someone were being paid to change public opinion around the case, this is what i would expect to read. Don't fall for Apple's marketing

> -use tires from arbitrary manufacturers

Just like I can put cases from arbitrary manufacturers on my iPhone.

> -use oil from arbitrary manufacturers

Just like I can use chargers from arbitrary manufacturers.

> -drive to arbitrary locations

Visit arbitrary websites...

> -use a universal port to get error codes (OBD-II)

OBD-II is actually a good analogy because it exposes only a small set of standardized data, but the more interesting data (and ability to run diagnostics) is sometimes behind a manufacturer proprietary protocol and requires something more than just the standard OBD-II interface. Similarly Apple can choose what standard interfaces and protocols to implement and which proprietary ones they would like to create.

> why does it change when you add a cell radio?

Because that's what Apple chose to build and sell. You're free to build your own phone with your own feature set and sell that.

> Don't fall for Apple's marketing

Fortunately I'm capable of my own rational thought.

I think the point is that it's kind not entirely accurate to say that Apple doesn't allow messaging interoperability with Android. They in-fact do through dozens of available third party apps. They don't allow non-apple devices to implement the iMessage protocol, which could be argued to be anti-consumer but it's not really evidence of apple being a monopoly.

Edit: Just realized that you I misread your comment and you and I agree

Lack of iMessage support on Android.

> Lack of iMessage support on Android.

Plenty of other ways to send images.

I guess there’s WhatsApp etc, but it’s not a great experience. And that’s in part due to the ecosystem. I can swipe 200 photos and send them to my wife - it shares them on my iCloud behind the scenes, and sends a link. Messages makes it seem like I’ve sent 200 full quality photos in an instant.

That’s hard to do without the vertical integration.

In the UK nearly everyone is using Whatsapp (or Signal, Telegram, even FB Messenger - never iMessage) and it's completely fine.

In the UK here, using WhatsApp regularly too, but the image quality is hopeless on it, and it won’t let you send many at a time.

If I can, I always use iMessage as the integration is just better - especially for media.

I do this every day using WhatsApp.

I don’t think you can send images to friends on Xbox from a PS5, no? How is that different?

That argument would make sense of iPhone couldn't send any messages at all to Android or call Android phones.

There's a reason Apple hasn't taken their garden wall that far, lmao. Same as being able to use "non Apple WiFi and Bluetooth devices".

Half the replies in this thread make me think they'd be happy if Apple restricted iPhone WiFi to only connecting to Apple APs becuz muh security, muh feature ecosystem