> I have yet to find anyone outside the tech industry who actually knows or gives a crap.

Lots of school kids who get mocked for being "Green Texters" with crummy images and videos in their group texts. They really want their parents to shell out for an iPhone so it stops. Just because non-tech people don't know the cause, doesn't mean it doesn't affect them.

I'm not in the US but this is not a thing anywhere in the UK at least. Everyone uses WhatsApp. Same with all my friends in Europe. Same with my kids and their friends, although they all seem to be on SnapChat more than anything.

Actually we don't even tend to bother even talking about which phones you have. It's just meh. My best friend doesn't even know what iMessage is as an example.

It's a US problem. First link of a quick search:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/03/apples-green-bub...

So it's more a problem with the humans than the technology.

I think it's economic. The US has free texting these days, which means SMS has more usage here than in another countries. This has prevented the entire nation from coalesing around one chat app, as so many others have.

Every country in Europe I'm familiar with has free texts, but I think I can count with one hand the SMS I've received in the last ~10 years from actual people. Absolutely nobody sends SMS over here.

Might be that US got the free texts first though. Not sure anymore what was the timeline with that.

When Whatsapp was released, free text messaging was not a thing for most of europe. The USA had long since ditched charging for sms messaging by that point, so the attractiveness of a free communications app wasn't there.

Also, there are carriers in europe that offer bundle discounts and better data packages for opting out of sms altogether.

It has been the same here in the UK for longer. I haven't paid for an SMS for over 20 years.

I've had unlimited free texting in western Europe for over a decade now, and so have many other western Europeans. I've had unlimited free texting for longer than I have had unlimited mobile data, yet I still use WhatsApp, I even used WhatsApp back when I didn't have free unlimited mobile data.

It's not about free texting or not, IMO it's either about mobile data or laziness.

Texting has always been free so messaging apps never became popular. Most people have always used whatever came with the phone.

It's very much a problem that Whatsapp isn't using an open protocol IMO. I really want to use Signal for my family and yet one has to jump from app to app to talk to other people.

It's ridiculous - all I'm asking is for the convenience of email.

This is an outrageous take. Is iMessage the only group messaging app? If Apple was gate keeping all group messaging, I could see your point.

It's not a take; it's simply a description, and it's accurate. There is a significant and undeniable social pressure for young people in the US to have an iPhone.

If you can't use iMessage, you'll simply be excluded from group chats.

Speaking exclusively from the cross-platform perspective, things are better nowadays with the expectation of Instagram and Discord, but you'll still be excluded from group chats for not having iMessage.

I think this is a pretty big generational difference. I think most US citizens born after 2000 are well aware of the green bubble stigma as a simple fact of life.

I think it’s weird that governments would regulate a company on behalf of this reason.

A bunch of teens got together and decided that some things were social stigma aren’t.

I’m sure there’s some schools where you can’t be included unless you are wearing Abercrombie clothing, or have a MK purse. Is it time to step in there too?

> A bunch of teens got together and decided

No, they did not. There is no teenage illuminati pulling the strings. The green bubble phenomena appeared throughout teen social life as iPhones became widely adopted.

> I’m sure there’s some schools where you can’t be included unless you are wearing Abercrombie clothing, or have a MK purse.

These are imagined phenomena which don't have bearing on the real phenomenon in question.

> Is it time to step in there too?

No. If there comes a time where Abercrombie and control widely used social infrastructure, in a way that prohibits non-Abercrombie wearers from participating through technological means, resulting a widely-acknowledged negative social phenomenon, then that'll be time to step in there.

But the Abercrombie thing is imagined, and the iPhone thing is real and has been happening for a decade.

I assure it is not imagined as I attended public high school in the United States.

Was I wrong to interpret the phrasing "I’m sure there’s some schools" to imply you were assuming the existence of these schools?

I'm sorry that was your experience, but it's not a widespread phenomenon like the green bubble phenomenon is.

When a person or entity doesn't do what you want, of course it's time to send in the goons to force them to behave.

What's the point of having the goons if you're not going to use them?

I'm having a really hard time understanding the point of your comment. Let's peel back a layer of sarcasm here, evidenced by your use of the word "goons."

You think it's wrong for the state to enforce a rule that prevents a certain type of behavior. Where does that end? Unsanctioned violence? Environmental destruction? Surely you're not advocating for anarchy.

Ok, so you agree with reasonable limits on the power of these "goons." Do you then think Apple's behavior simply doesn't warrant this kind of enforcement? Why not just say that instead, and explain why?

Spewing random sarcastic libertarian screeds just makes the whole discussion worse.

It's a very common take that has been around for a very long time, so not outrageous in my opinion. Unless you mean outrageous on Apple's part, then I agree with you.

no, it's not, but is the default that works well for a large chunk of people, with an (intentionally) poorly degrading experience if one person in the group is not with the "in-crowd."

Yes, life would be better if everyone mutually agreed to use things crossplatform all of the time. but they don't/haven't, so there is this friction.

Blame the carriers for not implementing rcs and getting stuck in horrible mms. Then blame Apple if they don’t implement it.

Fortunately it's up to regulators to decide what favors the population best.

At least in EU they seem to be active (USB iPhones anyone), albeit slower than I'd like.

In democracies, usually it's up to the population to decide what favors the population best.

Also, in democracies with a somewhat free market, you can simply choose not to buy phones that do not ship the port you prefer.

In democracies, the population decides what favors them, and the government enacts their will via regulation. Without regulation, some companies will abuse their customers when profitable to do so, often dominating over the companies that do not.

Not really. The Department of Justice cited this exact behavior in their investigation of Apple.

https://www.npr.org/2024/03/28/1241443505/green-bubble-shami...

> Lots of school kids who get mocked for being "Green Texters"

So, you decided to try solving a social problem with a technological solution?

Don’t make me tap the sign.

Open SMTP relays never made anyone not get bullied in the email days either. If the apple is a status symbol, then kids will use it to be cruel regardless of the internals or regardless of the services it uses on the backend. They will find something else to ostracize you over.

Because those same kids aren't going to get mocked for the brand of clothing (or lack there of) that they wear?

Using something as an excuse to be a piece of shit is not the same as giving a crap. This isnt an example of a good reason to do this.

I was a kid not too long ago and no one gave a shit about a single luxury item other than iPhones. People who had fancy stuff were generally made fun of, the cool kids all wore stuff from the thrift store

The point is that there will always be something that kids use to single out and ostracize others. Kids are little barbarians who don't know how to be decent human beings yet, it isn't going to change just because they have to pick on some other characteristic to mock.

Why does apple ahve to encourage that behavior though? Theyve designed iMessage to make the experience worse with some people, it absolutely encourages exclusionary behavior among those who arent inclined to be exclusionary. Obviously some kids are just assholes, but plenty arent just going around looking for things to be mean about.

Spotify does not want to charge a “30% margin”. Spotify wants to not give up 30% of their revenue to Apple, who coincidentally had a competing service effectively free from the 30% tax.

The epic game store charges 12%; against which developers are partially handcuffed due to steams price matching requirement.

Relevant: Spotify already hands over 70% of their revenue to music rights holders to cover the various performance and mechanical royalties. All of their other operating expenses have to fit into the remaining 30%, meaning they often have quarters that report a loss.

Apple trying to take 30% of subscriptions while operating a competing service as a value-add that can afford to be a loss leader is highly anticompetitive.

Even the most extreme Apple position isn’t trying to take 30% of all of Spotifys revenue, they’re trying to take 30% of each subscription originated on-device, for the first year of that customer. Which is still a huge cut, and still a problem that doesn’t encumber Apple Music, but the business question for Spotify is “do the incremental subscribers make sense (in quality and quantity), not “sell one subscription and Apple eats our entire operating budget”.

A better Apple (with less adversarial partners) might have tried to structure the commission as a profit share, not a rev share, to keep high and low margin businesses on the platform, but alas.

The crazy thing is that Spotify has already proven that in-app subscription on iOS isn’t necessary to their business, since they’ve already succeeded in becoming the most popular music service without it!

But of course that’s not going to keep them from asking their government to give them more.

Business is about staying in business, not being popular. A streaming pricing model, so you lose money on your best customers streaming 24x7 who get a great deal whilst keeping mediocre customers on a free tier because it is expensive. An advertising service where the audience is so tight they won't pay the price of a coffee for music streaming. Popular but sustainable? They already can't pay artists enough, only getting away with that because artists don't have a choice but to bend over.

I’m not sure that needed clarification but sure

I found it useful. (Your comments too.)

Small correction: Apple was getting 15% from Spotify, not 30%.

Yes, but a sweetheart deal to avoid a legal battle for the greater good with the few entities that have sufficient mass to potentially win at court is a scummy thing in its own right

There was no sweetheart deal. Spotify pays Apple 0% because they offer no in-app subscriptions, and any developer with long term subscribers gets 15% pricing.

How is it "charging a 30% margin" to keep more of your own revenue? Epic wants everyone to be able to keep more of their own revenue; they proved this by rejecting the sweetheart deal Apple offered them. If a company's revenues are 30% higher they now have the ability to lower their prices (unless one of the major players demands price parity to thwart competition, as does happen)

That sounds horrible.

Maybe Apple should open up their ecosystem, that way multiple other app stores can compete and drive that percentage price down to zero.