397
Senator Warren calls out Apple for shutting down Beeper's 'iMessage to Android' solution (techcrunch.com)
submitted 2 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
125 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Senator Warren calls out Apple for shutting down Beeper's 'iMessage to Android' solution::U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is throwing her weight behind Beeper, the app that allowed Android users to message iPhone users via iMessage,

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Oh I see. Didn't realize you'd already deleted it. Anyway, best of luck; I think you bring up valid complaints but idk why the vitriol. This crowd is much less annoying than what's found in some similar forums. Don't let the downvotes bother you too much.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It's not so much me being upset at fake internet points than it is at me being upset that I've been seeing how this place has changed since I joined, and it's super easy for a place like this to become an echo chamber, especially when people are just asking questions. Genuine discussion is drowned out by people treating the vote system like Facebook likes

    I wanted out of reddit long before the fiasco, and whenni got here it was way different than it's starting to become

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Very much with you on that stance. However, this "bubble battle" is very much an echo chamber scenario, regardless where it's discussed.

    Heck, let me just ask you directly: why does Apple maintain such a divisive stance on the subject?

    I haven't gotten much (on several forums) regarding that question, more than "they choose too".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    My only guess is that they developed a proprietary system and as a business want to maintain control of their proprietary system as one of the selling points to their hardware ecosystem. It makes them money, and a business in a capitalist market, they want to keep their competitive edge.

    Which, honestly, I get. Imagine you created something (and note, not invented) and someone decides you should be forced to share it simply because it sells better than what the other guys have.

    My only argument against this is that there already are internet based end to end encryption messaging systems in place, both private and FOSS. It's not like Apple has a monopoly on this type of technology or system.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    Yes but imagine in an established system, let's use the US mail as an example, I create a stamp that meets the criteria of postage stamps but also (somehow; after all it is proprietary) requires the opening of the mailed parcel to be contingent upon something like watching an ad, or "signing in" unless you have a subscription at my fancy new parcel stamp company...

    I would imagine that most of us would not want to simply "accept this new ecosystem" and would struggle with legitimizing it.

    The sunken cost fallacy comes to mind; as those who have "subscribed" to such a business model don't perceive themselves as inconvenienced... And only when comparing themselves to those who aren't subscribed could they even know the shady business model even exists!

    In the end, it feels like Apple is intentionally creating systemic division so that it's customer base feels like they are a part of something exclusive (even if said exclusive content/system doesn't appear to serve them in any way other than "feeling exclusive").

    Apple could very easily mitigate the echo chamber they have created. But they created it to serve the Apple shareholders, alone.

    No?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    I think the argument comes in that, this actually doesn't apply to those who don't have said system. Imagine instead it's a stamp that only applies differences if the recipient also subscribes to said stamp service. To everyone else, it's just a regular letter. I can easily go use a different service of the same type to achieve the same benefits.

    And yeah, they do use their system to benefit their shareholders, which is what businesses do with their proprietary services.

    Im not arguing for this by any means, just trying to play devils advocate as for why Apple would want to maintain control over it and why I think it's odd that the government wants to get involved. I feel like companies like amazon do more impractical shit to maintain control over the market, but bubble colors just aren't anywhere near the top of the list for things I think politicians need to spend time talking about.

    I wouldn't be upset if they forced apples hand, though, others have pointed out that it would even the competive market for other manufacturers

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    First off, just want to thank you for the civil discourse. It's why we are here, right?

    But in your rebuttal... keep in mind that the iPhone users are effected in as much as the only solution an iPhone user can currently offer (when their iPhone image is compressed to a nearly illegible degree after being sent to any non-iPhone user) is "maybe you should buy an iPhone like I did" or they have to use an entirely different system to resend the image (this latter solution being more inconvenient to the iPhone user).

    As someone said below:

    "Apple could release their own iMessage client for Android if this were really about trusting beeper, but it's not. It's about using peer pressure with blue bubbles to sell more iPhones."

    I feel its either sunken-cost-fallacy-as-brand-ambassadorship or simply (yet another example of) bad faith arguments to support such underhanded "but... is it illegal?" behavior that borders on needing current anti-trust requirements to be reevaluated.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent