[lvl102]

That’s not Apple’s doing. They introduced iMessage as a direct result of telecom companies charging customers for text messages a la carte. If DoJ has issues with those blue bubbles then they should’ve sued telecom back then. This entire suit is a joke.

[Workaccount2]

The problem isn't the messaging service, the problem is the artificial hardware requirement in order to use it. Second would be the inability to make another app the primary/default once you have said hardware.

[lvl102]

That’s not what antitrust is about. Functionally speaking, you would not be able to prove there’s economic harm. Apple’s share of smartphone does not even compare to MSFT’s share of PC back in 90/00s.

[kelnos]

Anti-trust law has gone through a variety of interpretations over the long history of its existence, and I think your characterization of it is incorrect, even under today's recent interpretations.

This suit seems to follow the interpretation of: "it is bad if consumers are being harmed in some way". Having a monopoly position via market share is not a necessary condition for that to happen.

[lvl102]

How were consumers harmed from iMessage? Apple doesn’t stop people from downloading Whatsapp and hundreds of other communication apps. The only semi-valid argument they have is the app store. And even that is 10-20% chance considering Apple’s market share. Even though this is DoJ, this is all a part of Lina Khan’s naive crusade against NATURAL monopolies. Just because she doesn’t understand economics and how the real world operates in 2024.

[tristan957]

I am a consumer that was harmed just this week because I wasn't added to a group chat of only iPhone users because I have an Android device.

[edvinbesic]

Doesn't really seem like a platform issue per se since your friends could have easily included you just fine, but chose not to.

[tatrajim]

Sounds like you need new colleagues. Why would you wish to be part of such a snobbish group? I fail to see why anti-trust law should be brought to bear on issues concerning teen fads. How about wearing the right kind of sneakers? Branded purses, handbags? Parkas? Should uniformity reign universal across all consumer products lest someone, somewhere be excluded to a faddish distinction?

[kjkjadksj]

Blame your friends, I am in plenty of mixed group chats to no issue.

[hmage]

It sounds like "I am a car enthusiast who was harmed this week because I wasn't invited to join a Ferrari owners' club since I drive a Lamborghini."

People excluding people is the problem. Not the product.