[Longhanks]

Why should Apple be bullied to enter a market they clearly have no interest in?

Apple's message is clear: if you want iMessage, get an Apple device. And I fail to understand how "access to iMessage" should be considered a public good that Apple must be forced to allow others access to, there's nothing special about it, there's plenty of different services providing the same experience, anyone can launch an iMessage competitor.

[Levitz]

> there's nothing special about it, there's plenty of different services providing the same experience, anyone can launch an iMessage competitor.

There very evidently is something special about it. It comes from Apple, so it enjoys the advantages of their closed ecosystem and Apple can get away with offering an inferior product.

Apple has no interest in a market they control which has interested customers. Apple should be bullied into it because any other option is an utter failure of capitalism.

[Longhanks]

Apple does not "get away" with offering an inferior product. Any other messenger can be installed on Apple's devices and the OS does not penalize the user in any way for choosing e.g. WhatsApp over iMessage.

> Apple should be bullied into it because any other option is an utter failure of capitalism.

This is an extreme hyperbole, capitalism isn't going to fail because some people think less of "green bubble folks". Also, that scheme failed in any other market than the US. US folks engaging in bullying because of some messenger preferences does not mean you get to dictate the market, and if it does, please provide me some information about that law from which you derive that justification.