Previously, Google was found liable of anti-competitive practices for only showing Google Shopping results in the carousel at the top of the search results page. The argument was that Google was abusing its dominant market position in search engines to gain a market advantage in comparison shopping services. As a result, Google was ordered to allow third-party comparison shopping services to integrate.
How is this different? The problem with iMessage is that it has that premium, native, and out-of-the-box OS integration including the SMS fallback. No other messaging app can compete with that.
Every other app needs to be a separate app that must be downloaded from the App Store. No other app can have the SMS fallback because iOS prohibits third-party SMS apps.
They are abusing their dominant market position in smartphones to gain a market advantage in messaging services. They have previously stated that they profit financially from a strong market position of iMessage, because that in turn boosts iPhone sales.
If Apple doesn't want to integrate third-party message services into iMessage and/or Messages, they are free to compete on even ground. They'd have to extract iMessage from the Messages app, change it to a non-preinstalled app that must be downloaded from the App Store, and remove the SMS fallback.
Hell, I remember getting banned back in the day from Snap for using the Windows Phone app.
Without a drastic overhaul across the entire industry around the definition of service providers "interface" and requirements around documentation, it'll just open an exciting new can of worms and pain for customers. Support will be hell, experiences that work seamless will be difficult to achieve.
Again - that's not to say it's a bad idea, it just seems like we'd need a real rethinking of how we're doing things as an industry. That could be good, or we end up with a tragedy of the commons.
I think the argument is the bundling of iMessage in with SMS. Yes, there's lots of third-party chat services too, and yes, no other tech company is clamoring to allow unauthorized third party access either.
But iMessage gets to intercept and pretend to be SMS (or more accurately, iMessage exists to block the RCS your phone line always already had) and it's pre-installed, uninstallable, and with special access exclusive to apple, which is where I think the argument could land.
A case could be argued of iMessage + iPhone is really similar to the late 90s era Microsoft Windows + Internet Explorer, in that they both break Sherman Antitrust Act: Section 2, in very similar ways, for very similar reasons.
(to be clear, I don't think they'd win, but I could see a strong argument there)
So people who do not afford to buy a loaf of bread, bought an iPhone. I think the problem lies somewhere else.
"Daddy, i want an iPhone. Everyone has one". "Sorry, i don't pay 800 Euros for a toy to make phone calls and watch youtube"
What does it even mean for Android to support iMessage if receiving images and videos means getting a non-url link to an iCloud photo (or synchronously transferring GBs at delivery time)?
Also, you have to synchronously transfer GB when you watch the video anyway. How do you think iPhones play videos?
