They say they don't do that. Here's one way it could have happened:
Suppose Apple had plans to monetise iMessage at the time it was developed and eventually decided against it for whatever reason. This would leave the company with a an app running on most phones. What to do? I can easily imaging someone standing up in a meeting and suggesting: "Well, running it costs very little, why don't we just minimise the cost of running it and keep providing it for as long as the cost is low?"
You mean that whenever an organisation pays for a loss-making operation using income from its hardware sales, that operation is monetised via hardware sales?
That doesn't make sense to me. It makes monetisation be a synonym of funding.
Surely, monetisation means that you do x in order to earn income from hardware sales. That is to say, your motivation counts, or rationale. The rationale is of course only known to people who attend the relevant budget meetings.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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+.
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.
