[hwbehrens]

I think what the (grand)parent would argue is that this isn't removing barriers to competition, it's removing competition itself. That is, iMessage is a feature provided by Apple that makes their products more compelling as compared to their competitors. By requiring Apple to provide this feature to their competitors, they lose one of the key differentiators that make their products "better" than their competitors.

> [...] want to implement something "different" [...]

The slippery-slope argument we're seeing here is that eventually, regulations would require all products and services to be exactly the same for inter-compatibility, which in turn induces a cooling effect on any innovation or novel developments (at least for existing product verticals under regulatory capture).

[fennecfoxy]

You're saying Apple's iMessage is a response to competition as a feature to compete.

It is, in actuality, anti-competitive as there is no way to a competitor to participate other than creating a separate platform or App for messaging. Because iMessage comes with and is supported by both all iPhones and Apple it is an uneven playing field; it is impossible to compete & is therefore anti-competitive.

The same thing would happen with TMSC, at the moment Apple buys out a large chunk if not all of their production capacity for a node - this is fine, it's just business. If Apple said to TMSC, "we'll buy out all your capacity for this node but only if you contractually refuse to sell this node to any other company while we're using it" this is anti-competitive behaviour.

[smoldesu]

> it's removing competition itself.

That's pretty funny considering the European Commission's original complaint against Apple was for anti-competitive behavior.

Maybe things would have turned out differently if Apple hadn't embraced, extended and extinguished SMS. Maybe regulators would be a little more lenient if the App Store was ruled with anything other than an iron fist. But now they have to take action, not because Apple is unique, but because their business practices are interfering with the progress of the rest of the industry. Competitive agency is a weak excuse when they're a noted tyrant on their own platform.

[JoeNr76]

In the case of iMessage, Apple has a competitive advantage that stifles competition, not enhances it.

Setting a baseline for interoperability is not the same as requiring them all to be the same.

[hellojesus]

People vote with their dollars. If people don't like the dumb messaging, they can move to a different platform.

With infinite amounts of other free apps, why are regulations necessary? Let people decide for themselves.

[smoldesu]

The same could be said for Disneyland, but it's not an excuse to let Disney engage in lawless conduct as long as it's within the park.

[hellojesus]

Yes, but users choose to visit sites like they choose to visit a park. They would know the risks before going.

The lawlessness described here isn't harm on a third party against their consent. It's fully known by both parties at the time of the voluntary transaction.

[ClumsyPilot]

So people who have no dollars get no vote and deserve nothing?

Should we take the same approach with clean air and see what happens?

[JumpCrisscross]

> people who have no dollars get no vote and deserve nothing?

On how messaging works on thousand-dollar phones? Yes.

[ClumsyPilot]

Nice

If your were in charge when the telephone network was designed, poor people would not even be able to make a phonecall to their middleclass neighbour or senator, they'd have to buy a special Rich People phone

[jaywalk]

Your hypothetical would make sense if iPhones didn't support regular phone calls, SMS, and every other messaging app out there. All people without iPhones can't do is send blue bubble messages to iPhone users. That's literally it.