[throwaway22056]

I don't know, it doesn't to me. To me it sounds like they provide a convenient free service like many other free services (Telegram, WhatsApp, ...), but limit it to their actual customers so it stays limited in scope and they don't need to start selling data and ad space like others do to support it.

[bloppe]

This might be true in Europe, but not in America. In Europe, nobody uses iMessage, because WhatsApp got there first. iMessage is locked down and therefore less useful than WhatsApp. Despite the fact that iMessage is pre-installed in iPhones, and you can't change your default messaging app, and everything about the iPhone encourages you to use it, people still download WhatsApp instead. That's how things are supposed to be; the more useful, more open, more technically capable service won out. And no, WhatsApp does not have ads, nor does it collect your data due to its E2E encryption.

In America, iMessage got there first. Even though it's technically worse than WhatsApp, enough people use it (a majority) that it doesn't matter that it handicaps its own users with SMS and green bubbles. People think it's all the other phones' fault rather than the iPhone's fault. It's a massive driver of iPhone sales, and Apple execs are on the record acknowledging that.

That's not how it's supposed to work. The better messaging platforms should be competitive. Apple stock would tank if they were forced to open up the iMessage API.

[withinboredom]

> Apple stock would tank if they were forced to open up the iMessage API.

If I were on the board of Apple, that's precisely why I'd be pushing for it to be open. I would be terrified if my company's value were in a stupid chatting protocol. It's the difference between accidentally driving off a cliff and purposely driving off a cliff with a parachute. I'd choose the parachute and make money/goodwill from the exposure vs. losing everything because the "blue sheeple" woke up.

[InsomniacL]

They give iMessage an unfair advantage by allowing it access to their device functions they prevent iMessage competitors from accessing.

They do this with a lot of things, if you try to use a password manager on iOS other than Apple's, it's so restricted it's almost unusable.

[greedo]

Are you kidding? 1Password is excellent on iOS, far better than the MacOS version.

[withinboredom]

I don't think you can use 1Password passkey without turning on the default password manager; at least, you cannot login using apple account passkey on the computer with 1Password.

[jb1991]

1Password works great for me on macOS and iOS. What am I missing?

[piperswe]

In my experience, password managers on iOS are significantly more usable than on Android.

Source: recently switched from iPhone to Pixel, not sure how long I can keep it up though

[throwaway22056]

What device functions exactly? I don't see many differences in the UX and functionalities of WhatsApp or Telegram.

[Kilenaitor]

Not OP but one that is usually contentions is the ability to act as an SMS client. Facebook's Messenger can or at least used to be able to do this on Android. It cannot on iOS.

[throwaway22056]

Ugh, that's one of the things I really hate about it (and hated about Messenger and that Google app thing on Android).

[Shadowmist]

I use Bitwarden on iOS and MacOS (and Windows and Linux). Works great.

[arghwhat]

When a service reaches a certain size, it is not just a small free service for its users. This is the point of gatekeeper regulations: Ensuring that services large enough to have significant impact on people are well-behaved and compatible.

The argument that iMessage is a service provided by Apple for Apple products and that they should be allowed to do whatever with their products is the same argument they've used to restrict App Store, force developers to use their payment systems and charge outrageous cuts of every payment a user might make through there.

iMessage plays quite a notable role in this, as a user whose friends use iMessage (more prevalent in parts of the U.S. I think) might feel unable to move away in order to be connected to their iMessage-using friends, in turn ensuring that they keep buying iPhones and paying Apple a 30% cut of all their app subscriptions from Duolingo to Disney+.

[makeitdouble]

That would be fair enough if they didn't have a message trail of execs positing iMessage is a stake against android that they can't let go.

[djfdat]

free in that case, being subsidized by other purchases and the value of lock-in on those users. Doesn't sound like free. Sounds likes a calculated offering where users are paying, not in terms of their data, but their inability to change platforms and guarantee of future purchases being spent on Apple products.

[throwaway22056]

Is there any case in your world where a company just provides a free convenient service to its customers, or is it always an ulterior motive?