EU Planning to Force Apple to Give Developers Access to All Hardware and Software Features

[djphat2000]

What more do I want in an SMS? Try interoperability.

It is interoperable is it not? I can text from my cell to another cell regardless of which OS it uses.

Try default.

As in another option for SMS? Should we have another option for "Phone" too?

Maybe something a little more up to date for basic SMS functionality (that's another can of worms).

Like what? Send text information to another cell device. What more do you need it to do? Want to send a pic, or audio/video clip (MMS).

Try not having to install multiple apps and create multiple accounts just to text to folks.

Should they all just be 1 (ONE) application? Or many different ones that works with each other? Then what's the point of having so many options? Why should one do something better/worse than another if they are all interoperable between them? Again, I fail to see what you want here. 1 App that you can pick from a group of apps that will work with another companies app? Why can't each company make something unique that only works with what they make AND they can offer it across multiple platforms?

I'm not trying to make Apple products work like Android. Far from it. From my post to @I7guy :
"From my opinion, it should be about the apps and functions, not the OS. If I want Telegram as my messaging app of choice, if I want Teams as my collaboration tool, if I want Outlook as my email / calendar, if I want ... I should be able to use these on any OS that they are offered as my default tools and not locked into unwanted defaults.

How can you not do this today? I have Outlook as my email, teams as my work chat/collab app and whatever apps I want for texting/video chatting etc. I'm not seeing anything preventing me from doing all this or getting in my way at present. Do you want it to come default with your Apps of choice? Do you want to be able to change the defaults (customize it) to your liking? What? On Android you can do whatever you want. On Apple you operate in a more restrictive way, yes. But, that's what they sell and people know this. If you don't like it, you're not forced to buy it.

Just like I believe we should have multiple points of sale for said apps."

Again, more reason to stick with Android if that is your preference. No reason what so ever to require Apple to change their business model and way of doing things just because of a few people that would normally not buy Apple products anyway. Get to change it for the rest of those that do like the product the way it is and the way it works.

In our belief we see such action as taking away our choice. We are free to choose another platform that does what you state above. Most of us choose not to.

 

[I7guy]

The comment was not rejected by the people in responsible positions and who are the epople who set the policies in their depositions. It is the opinion of many experts and I hope you have heard about expert opinions? They have more value than our (yours and mine) opinions.
You can read more here (search for iMessage). I could give you excerpts, but going by the history, it makes no difference. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364265/gov.uscourts.cand.364265.407.0.pdf

Apple has recognized the power that iMessage has to attract and keep users within its ecosystem.

Sounds like a value add rather than a lock-in, the court has written.

 

[dk001]

1. It is interoperable is it not? I can text from my cell to another cell regardless of which OS it uses.

2. As in another option for SMS? Should we have another option for "Phone" too?

3. Like what? Send text information to another cell device. What more do you need it to do? Want to send a pic, or audio/video clip (MMS).

4. Should they all just be 1 (ONE) application? Or many different ones that works with each other? Then what's the point of having so many options? Why should one do something better/worse than another if they are all interoperable between them? Again, I fail to see what you want here. 1 App that you can pick from a group of apps that will work with another companies app? Why can't each company make something unique that only works with what they make AND they can offer it across multiple platforms?

5. How can you not do this today? I have Outlook as my email, teams as my work chat/collab app and whatever apps I want for texting/video chatting etc. I'm not seeing anything preventing me from doing all this or getting in my way at present. Do you want it to come default with your Apps of choice? Do you want to be able to change the defaults (customize it) to your liking? What? On Android you can do whatever you want. On Apple you operate in a more restrictive way, yes. But, that's what they sell and people know this. If you don't like it, you're not forced to buy it.

6. Again, more reason to stick with Android if that is your preference. No reason what so ever to require Apple to change their business model and way of doing things just because of a few people that would normally not buy Apple products anyway. Get to change it for the rest of those that do like the product the way it is and the way it works.

7. In our belief we see such action as taking away our choice. We are free to choose another platform that does what you state above. Most of us choose not to.

1. No. If you send me a message via an app I don't have, unless the sending app can send stock SMS, I'm not getting it. Same for the other way. "Send Juan Doe a text irrespective of what app he uses.
2. LMAO!!! Sure if you want. An alternative phone app? Who knows.
3. Maybe something with basic encryption or ... SMS is around 40 years old. Time to evolve.
4. Work would be great but basic ability to receive and display basic text would be good. It already exists however Apple disallows alot of that.
5. Then kindly tell me how I can set Outlook or ProtonMail/ProtonCalendar as my defaults? You can't. There are basic functions in IOS/iPadOS that call for the default apps. You can only marginally change 2 default Apple apps.
6. I use both. But yes, Android is my main phone device.
7. Most? how did you quantify that? Most folks give it no thought and have non opinion one way or the other. Same with Android. I was stating my preference as almost all other OSs can and do.

 

[djphat2000]

1. No. If you send me a message via an app I don't have, unless the sending app can send stock SMS, I'm not getting it.

You have a default SMS app no? My apple default messages app will send you on your android a text to its SMS app. You have a different SMS app than Apples. Asking for multi 3rd party apps to all play nice together in some way is not always worth it for each company. clearly they moved past SMS/MMS and created something "new". Which is why we use them. If you don't like one, you have another and so on.

Same for the other way. "Send Juan Doe a text irrespective of what app he uses.

How do we get basic SMS/MMS text to Juan on another app? Right now those are attached to your cell number. The App would need access to that and or your phone OS would have to route it to that app. Any text received from 555-555-5555 goes to 3rd party app.

Just send Juan a text from the default built in app. Simple done. Want something more complex use a 3rd party app.

2. LMAO!!! Sure if you want. An alternative phone app? Who knows.

It's an example of how far do we really need this to go. If simple basic SMS/MMS needs to be improved (which it has been with things like iMessage and all the 3rd party apps). Why not improve the phone app? Lets make it call someones email so we don't have to type one out. Or I want Androids phone app on my iPhone and vice versa.

3. Maybe something with basic encryption or ... SMS is around 40 years old. Time to evolve.

Again, I thought we did with all these 3rd party apps. In its basic form, it works just fine. It does not need improvement for what it is. Just like placing a phone call. We don't need a new app for this. BUT, if you want something different, we need to make something different in this case. And again, we have plenty of options.

4. Work would be great but basic ability to receive and display basic text would be good. It already exists however Apple disallows alot of that.

And they have every right to disallow whatever they want. They made the device and iOS that runs on it. They get to set the rules. If you don't agree with them. We don't have to buy them. We have plenty of other options.

5. Then kindly tell me how I can set Outlook or ProtonMail/ProtonCalendar as my defaults? You can't. There are basic functions in IOS/iPadOS that call for the default apps. You can only marginally change 2 default Apple apps.

Well those 2 apps you refer to

Change your default apps for features on iPhone and iPad - Apple Support

You can change the default app for web browsing, email, and more features on iPhone and iPad.

support.apple.com

6. I use both. But yes, Android is my main phone device.

Excellent.

7. Most? how did you quantify that? Most folks give it no thought and have non opinion one way or the other. Same with Android. I was stating my preference as almost all other OSs can and do.

I'm very sure a large share of the population have no clue about any of these topics. Nor do they care about what we think in these forms. But, when these laws start to force Apple and or Google to make drastic changes. They may start to care a bit more. I still lean on Apple changing their plans in the EU. Possibly offering way less than they do today. To not fall under gatekeeper status.

 

[dk001]

You have a default SMS app no? My apple default messages app will send you on your android a text to its SMS app. You have a different SMS app than Apples. Asking for multi 3rd party apps to all play nice together in some way is not always worth it for each company. clearly they moved past SMS/MMS and created something "new". Which is why we use them. If you don't like one, you have another and so on.

- You missed the issue. iMessage cannot send text to many 3rd party apps nor receive it. I use Signal on Android. Try sending me a text via iMessage.

How do we get basic SMS/MMS text to Juan on another app? Right now those are attached to your cell number. The App would need access to that and or your phone OS would have to route it to that app. Any text received from 555-555-5555 goes to 3rd party app.

- Does not work for all apps.

Just send Juan a text from the default built in app. Simple done. Want something more complex use a 3rd party app.

I would prefer not to have to jump via several apps to accomplish this. Not sure why you keep putting this forth as a solution. It isn't.

It's an example of how far do we really need this to go. If simple basic SMS/MMS needs to be improved (which it has been with things like iMessage and all the 3rd party apps). Why not improve the phone app? Lets make it call someones email so we don't have to type one out. Or I want Androids phone app on my iPhone and vice versa.

Now who is being ridiculous. Take a look at Android. Not sure of any "phone" apps. Let's stay realistic.

Again, I thought we did with all these 3rd party apps. In its basic form, it works just fine. It does not need improvement for what it is. Just like placing a phone call. We don't need a new app for this. BUT, if you want something different, we need to make something different in this case. And again, we have plenty of options.

So you are falling back to the "I don't see an issue so why are we fixing this"?

And they have every right to disallow whatever they want. They made the device and iOS that runs on it. They get to set the rules. If you don't agree with them. We don't have to buy them. We have plenty of other options.

Well those 2 apps you refer to

Change your default apps for features on iPhone and iPad - Apple Support

You can change the default app for web browsing, email, and more features on iPhone and iPad.

support.apple.com

Be nice if they worked as intended. BTDT - it is marginal at best. How about the rest of the apps? Maybe. Be great of Apple allowed it.

Excellent.

I'm very sure a large share of the population have no clue about any of these topics. Nor do they care about what we think in these forms. But, when these laws start to force Apple and or Google to make drastic changes. They may start to care a bit more. I still lean on Apple changing their plans in the EU. Possibly offering way less than they do today. To not fall under gatekeeper status.

Are the changes that drastic? Are they such a burden on Apple and Google that these companies should fight to not effect any changes? At present I only see Apple complaining and the deeper you dig into this the more it appears to be about money and control (IMO).

 

[I7guy]

- You missed the issue. iMessage cannot send text to many 3rd party apps nor receive it. I use Signal on Android. Try sending me a text via iMessage.

Seems like a signal issue.

- Does not work for all apps.

I would prefer not to have to jump via several apps to accomplish this. Not sure why you keep putting this forth as a solution. It isn't.

Now who is being ridiculous. Take a look at Android. Not sure of any "phone" apps. Let's stay realistic.

So you are falling back to the "I don't see an issue so why are we fixing this"?

Be nice if they worked as intended. BTDT - it is marginal at best. How about the rest of the apps? Maybe. Be great of Apple allowed it.

Are the changes that drastic? Are they such a burden on Apple and Google that these companies should fight to not effect any changes? At present I only see Apple complaining and the deeper you dig into this the more it appears to be about money and control (IMO).

I call it value added to the platform. Maybe these apps should all support the lowest common denominator of SMS?

 

[macar00n]

And could it be a majority of users would find these legislation removing some of the negative parts of iPhones a good thing? How about making iOS more like Mac instead of android? Any data to supporting it will be bad?

The majority of users would immediately be faced with unethical companies only making their app available on their less secure and worse app store, so users have to face getting their app through some scumbag store insecurely or not using it at all. At least Apple enforces some standards.

I'm not replying to the rest of your post because I don't care enough. Sorry. I hope this "Brexit of iPhone" ends well for Apple users

 

[macar00n]

Your entire arguement falls apart when you call Android 'crap' which it quite clearly is not. I'm not going to day its better because I don't believe one platform is really any better than the next. 99% of their functionality is shared.

Ok, so buy an Android phone for the same cost as an iPhone but with lower build quality, running one of 60 different inefficient OSs, uninstall all the bloatware from the phone manufacturer and wireless provider, install literal malware from the multiple app stores, and enjoy whatever other FrEeDoM the platform affords you. The choice already exists - if Android is so not crappy, all the more reason to leave the iPhone alone and buy this TREMENDOUSLY EXCELLENT alternative which I think is crappy

 

[dk001]

Seems like a signal issue.

Same with many 3rd party messaging apps.

I call it value added to the platform. Maybe these apps should all support the lowest common denominator of SMS?

True but they really need to evolve SMS - it’s archaic at best.

 

[RadioHedgeFund]

Ok, so buy an Android phone for the same cost as an iPhone but with lower build quality, running one of 60 different inefficient OSs, uninstall all the bloatware from the phone manufacturer and wireless provider, install literal malware from the multiple app stores, and enjoy whatever other FrEeDoM the platform affords you. The choice already exists - if Android is so not crappy, all the more reason to leave the iPhone alone and buy this TREMENDOUSLY EXCELLENT alternative which I think is crappy

I did. I brought a Pixel 6 to replace my XR. I didn't have to uninstall a thing, the photo quality is incredible and the camera app actually contains really useful functions you can't get anywhere else.

Your comment belongs in 2012 where you would have a point.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The majority of users would immediately be faced with unethical companies only making their app available on their less secure and worse app store, so users have to face getting their app through some scumbag store insecurely or not using it at all. At least Apple enforces some standards.

I'm not replying to the rest of your post because I don't care enough. Sorry. I hope this "Brexit of iPhone" ends well for Apple users

The majority of users would be exactly where they are are now. Installing from the iOS AppStore. This happened to the google play store and it happened to steam.

Users stayed with the Play store.
And Mac users stayed with steam ignoring the Mac AppStore, as their library already exist there.

Windows users stayed with steam, because that is where all their games already exist. Etc etc

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Well, there is a difference between opinions and statements made on court briefs.

Again, the "lock-in" comment was the opinion of a former Beats/Apple employee.

The Apple executives simply commented that keeping iMessage exclusive to iOS would discourage people from switching. There is a difference between lock-in and offering exclusive features that cause consumers to buy your product. Offering features in your product that consumers want is competition, not lock-in.

As I've said earlier, lock-in is imposing an unreasonable burden to switch to a competitor. Switching to a different messaging app is no more difficult than changing your phone number.

Seems like a perfectly logical conversation to me. On whether or not to create an iMessages app for Android or not. I'm sure similar conversations have been had on things like FaceTime. Or any other Apple "only" application. Mobile or not. There are points of view for both options in this email change not JUST to make it harder to switch or leave. Do we want to be the dominate messaging App? Do we want those on Android to like/want our Apps and maybe down the line switch to our product? Like a gateway app. Users try it, like it and maybe say "what else you got Apple?" Which by all accounts isn't preventing switching from happening. That would be more do to cost of the device in the case of children having a phone.

This boils down to competition between companies.

I think you people use the wrong word for lock in.
Vendor lock-in is a situation in which a customer using a product or service cannot easily transition to a competitor's product or service. Vendor lock-in is usually the result of proprietary technologies that are incompatible with those of competitors.

Everything they describe is the textbook Defenition of it. Plus it being the company policy

 

[macar00n]

The majority of users would be exactly where they are are now. Installing from the iOS AppStore. This happened to the google play store and it happened to steam.

Users stayed with the Play store.
And Mac users stayed with steam ignoring the Mac AppStore, as their library already exist there.

Windows users stayed with steam, because that is where all their games already exist. Etc etc

Yes, and when your bank or town requires you to have some app that is only available from their crappy app store? What then?

 

[macar00n]

I did. I brought a Pixel 6 to replace my XR. I didn't have to uninstall a thing, the photo quality is incredible and the camera app actually contains really useful functions you can't get anywhere else.

Your comment belongs in 2012 where you would have a point.

So what you're saying is that a good choice already exists, so the iPhone doesn't need to change in order for people to have that choice?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

- You missed the issue. iMessage cannot send text to many 3rd party apps nor receive it. I use Signal on Android. Try sending me a text via iMessage.

As far as I know you can send a text from signal on android. And you can receive sms from iOS on signal on android. But you can’t use signal and receive or send text on iOS. Essentially a one way street.

iOS can send sms to signal(and other apps) on android

Android can send sms with signal(and other apps) to anyone if it’s your default app.

As for iOS users, you can’t send SMS messages through the Signal( and other apps) app. Apple doesn’t allow its users to change the default messaging app on their device

But it’s simple vendor lock-in for a core platform services and make it as cumbersome as possible to switch.

Essentially the sunk cost fallacy as we have

The sunk cost fallacy means that we are making decisions that are irrational and lead to suboptimal outcomes. We are focused on our past investments instead of our present and future costs and benefits, meaning that we commit ourselves to decisions that are no longer in our best interests.

And companies exploits this to the max

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Yes, and when your bank or town requires you to have some app that is only available from their crappy app store? What then?

Considering This hasn’t happened to android or any store on the planet. Then why would we expect them to do this for no financial gain? Multi homing is important to reach a broad market

what do you do currently if they remove their app and only exist on android?

 

[BaldiMac]

I think you people use the wrong word for lock in.
Vendor lock-in is a situation in which a customer using a product or service cannot easily transition to a competitor's product or service.

Since you quoted the definition that I used and it's basically the same as yours, that's a pretty ridiculous claim.

Everything they describe is the textbook Defenition of it. Plus it being the company policy

Again, switching messaging services is as easy as switching your phone number.

 

[RadioHedgeFund]

So what you're saying is that a good choice already exists, so the iPhone doesn't need to change in order for people to have that choice?

I'm saying that in 2012 the iPhone was ok, Android was rubbish and Windows Phone made them both look like dinosaurs.

In 2022 the iPhone is great and Android is great.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Since you quoted the definition that I used and it's basically the same as yours, that's a pretty ridiculous claim.

Doesn’t seem like you use the same definition. In all these things apple have introduced artificial barriers for consumers.

Vendor lock-in isn’t illegal, but a highly Effective in capturing customers. It’s just seen as extremely unethical and anti consumer

Again, switching messaging services is as easy as switching your phone number.

Considering it’s not easy at all for an iOS user. iMessage only works iOS, and if you have an iPhone and your kid have an iPhone; then it will be inconvenient to you if you gave them an android phone as you no longer can use iMessage to communicate with them, it’s fine for them but not for you.

They literally say in their internal communication that apple would not benefit from making it interoperable and remove a barrier for parents to give their kids a cheap android phone.

 

[djphat2000]

I think you people use the wrong word for lock in.
Vendor lock-in is a situation in which a customer using a product or service cannot easily transition to a competitor's product or service. Vendor lock-in is usually the result of proprietary technologies that are incompatible with those of competitors.

Everything they describe is the textbook Defenition of it. Plus it being the company policy

What exactly is preventing this easy transition? Both Apple and Google provide tools to help/assist with migration from one device to the next. Most 3rd party apps exist on both platforms. I switched my mother in law from Android to iOS and the only thing I couldn't get done was transferring WhatsApp (at the time, I hear they are fixing this).

Claiming to be locked in because of iMessage is pretty silly. It is arguably a better messaging App than most. I can see an argument pro or con for that. But to lock a user in is far fetched. It's a benefit to using Apple's product for sure. Among other things they provide on the device via software or hardware. Just like Final Cut is a benefit to using Apple's computers. Since it is exclusive to Apple. They are under no obligation to provide that "benefit" to another platform. If they choose to, fine. If they choose to make money on it, fine. If they choose to make it an open standard, fine. But, they shouldn't be forced to. They shouldn't be forced to open it and or allow other 3rd party access to it.

They can have whatever company policy they want. They can have whatever conversations about company policy they want. Doesn't mean its bad or evil or good. It's a decision making process based on what they view (executives of the company) any next steps should be. Do we provide this application to all or do we keep it? Is there money to be made in doing so? Do we need to make money to do this? How does it help us and or hurt us? All of this and more has to be talked through and a stratigic plan made from it.

 

[djphat2000]

Doesn’t seem like you use the same definition. In all these things apple have introduced artificial barriers for consumers.

How is it any different than any other product on earth that builds something unique to them that no one else has? How is that a barrier? It's a feature of that product. You get "this" when you purchase our product. No one else has "this". If you want "this" buy here! If you don't, buy some place else. Is this not normal in the world?

Vendor lock-in isn’t illegal, but a highly Effective in capturing customers.

Like a lasso, just out there rounding up people. Roping them into the store to buy your product!! I got you consumer, pay me!!

It’s just seen as extremely unethical and anti consumer

HOW??? Every business (practically) does this. Do you not purchase something based on the features/services/benefits/price it provides? Or do you only buy things made by non-profits or given away from charities?

Considering it’s not easy at all for an iOS user. iMessage only works iOS, and if you have an iPhone and your kid have an iPhone; then it will be inconvenient to you if you gave them an android phone as you no longer can use iMessage to communicate with them, it’s fine for them but not for you.

I use iMessage to communicate with all my Android using friends. It sends them an MMS message or a SMS message every time. Emojis too. Do you want my Memoji that bad?

They literally say in their internal communication that apple would not benefit from making it interoperable and remove a barrier for parents to give their kids a cheap android phone.

Because their kids will see a green bubble vs a blue one? This is the great wall of china level barrier here......
They will buy their kids a cheap android phone because its "cheap", and their kids will just break them most likely. So, Apple came out with the SE models to make an inexpensive iPhone. Those greedy titans of industry at it again, roping up all the customers from Google!!!

Literally an option of one executive. As I stated before, they all work through the process of coming up with a stratigic plan for the company. All views are looked at, right or wrong views. Good or bad opinions. All of which is totally up to them. As a bad plan or decision will affect the company short or long term. If you or anyone doesn't like what Apple is doing, you can switch to another product.

 

[BaldiMac]

Doesn’t seem like you use the same definition. In all these things apple have introduced artificial barriers for consumers.

There are no barriers to switch messaging services. You create an account and you inform your contacts.

Vendor lock-in isn’t illegal, but a highly Effective in capturing customers. It’s just seen as extremely unethical and anti consumer

Again, having a feature people like isn't lock-in. See your own bolded definition.

Considering it’s not easy at all for an iOS user.

Again, it's as easy as switching phone numbers.

iMessage only works iOS, and if you have an iPhone and your kid have an iPhone; then it will be inconvenient to you if you gave them an android phone as you no longer can use iMessage to communicate with them, it’s fine for them but not for you.

So? Liking a feature isn't lock-in. You can easily switch to another messaging service.

They literally say in their internal communication that apple would not benefit from making it interoperable and remove a barrier for parents to give their kids a cheap android phone.

Yes, they say they don't want to port a popular feature to their competitor because it will take away a reason to stay. That's how competitive markets work. That's not lock-in. There is no significant barrier to prevent them from easily switching to another messaging service.

 

[djphat2000]

- You missed the issue. iMessage cannot send text to many 3rd party apps nor receive it. I use Signal on Android. Try sending me a text via iMessage.

Not Apples fault Signal doesn't receive messages from your cell number. Should both Apple and Google solve this? Should they provide a solution to make Signal work the way you want it to? Or should Signal figure out a way to revive messages from a cell number?

- Does not work for all apps.

Sucks.

I would prefer not to have to jump via several apps to accomplish this.

Then don't. Seriously do you wish you could stay in one app for all your apps too? Do you stay in your mail app to answer your phone, and reply to messages in facebook, and surf the web?
Lets take it to the Nth degree. Should Teams video chat work with Zoom and WebEx, and HD Meeting? Or should they be separate applications with uniqueness to each of them?

Should they work together to form some standard they can all communicate with so each user can stay on the app they prefer? Cause if you do that, what's the point of all the other apps? You end up with a standard and they all work exactly the same. AKA you end up with a basic SMS/MMS app or Phone app. With virtually no difference between them. If you want something "new", you use a "new" application that works differently and provides different features than "standard". Signal as you use is exactly this. A different app that works the way "it" works, that's not the same as others. There for will NOT work with others. Unless there is some collaboration between these companies and or the current "standard" of SMS in sending/receiving messages.

Forcing companies to use/create a standard removes many of the reasons you use each app. They all become the same app with a different look. So what did we accomplish by doing this other than interoperability?

Also, who's storing all this data? If your on one device with one OS and one "app". Does that app company store your data, or does all of them? Since it has to be able to connect you to virtually all other similar apps. They would all have to have your data (even if it's encrypted). So if you choose to switch to another similar app one day. All your "stuff" is right there. Or do you bulk transfer from your device to the next device and or app?

Not sure why you keep putting this forth as a solution. It isn't.

It is. You want to text someone and you don't know what they use. use SMS that's built in. I think you're choosing to make this difficult, when it's incredibly simple.

Now who is being ridiculous. Take a look at Android. Not sure of any "phone" apps. Let's stay realistic.

It was meant to be. Clearly.

So you are falling back to the "I don't see an issue so why are we fixing this"?

YES! Why are you asking for improvement on something that truly doesn't need it? It's like NotePad on Windows verses Text Edit on Mac. Do we need to improve that? If you feel that way, why not use one of a bunch of alternatives that already "is" an improvement over both? And just like text messaging (SMS) it's a default app on both platforms and both platforms read .txt just fine.

Be nice if they worked as intended. BTDT - it is marginal at best. How about the rest of the apps? Maybe. Be great of Apple allowed it.

Ok. Well, maybe Apple should design a phone and OS just for you?

Are the changes that drastic? Are they such a burden on Apple and Google that these companies should fight to not effect any changes?

Could be. Can't say for sure. Some changes maybe a zero affect on them. Others could be a higher percentage than they would otherwise wish to deal with. I personally don't think Apple does everything they do for profit only. Some things are long term plans that "will" benefit them financially but cost in the short term. If any of these changes had the potential to benefit them in the long term. They would most likely do it and do so quickly. I imagine the same would be true in reverse. If they don't see it as a long term benefit or just a total negative all around. They would fight to not do it. How does opening up their software/hardware "benefit" them? They have mostly been a closed "we make the whole widget" company.

Take the M1 for example. Apple could have just added AMD CPU's to their line up of offerings like any other PC company. AMD offered "better" CPU's right now vs intel. And I'm sure at better pricing. Since they already had Apple's dGPU business. But long term. Apple did not see a benefit to staying on x86 period. Didn't matter who made them. Too hot, and not advancing as quickly as Apple "wants". So, they looked at the CPU's they already made in the A series and said "you know what? I think we can make this work. Lets hire more people and get all the resources we need to make this happen. We will do it ourselves. It will cost us to do this in the short term. But long term, it will be another differentiator between us and the PC industry. We can control "our" own destiny as we always wanted".

At present I only see Apple complaining and the deeper you dig into this the more it appears to be about money and control (IMO).

Apple has every right to control what they make. Just like any other company. Unless it's illegal to make something that only works with other products made by the same company. And up until recently that was perfectly legal to do, whether you or anyone likes it or not. Every business has to make money/profit. This is no more illegal or immoral than anyone else in business.

 

[RadioHedgeFund]

Its not that Apple should open iMessage up to work with WhatsApp et al but that Apple should bin the whole thing. Their market penetration worldwide is quite laughable and it has become one of those products Apple releases every now and again where they admit they tried but then leave it to rust before discarding it. (Touchbar, butterfly keys, Trashcan Mac, USB 2.0 Lightning, dongles, WatchOS apps, Magic Mouse charging, Ping, Apple Maps, Me.com etc)

Apple should use this as an opportunity to reset the conversation and adopt RCS. There was a time that maybe it disrupted SMS but honestly most carriers offer unlimited SMS anyway so this is a moot point.

 

[BaldiMac]

Its not that Apple should open iMessage up to work with WhatsApp et al but that Apple should bin the whole thing. Their market penetration worldwide is quite laughable and it has become one of those products Apple releases every now and again where they admit they tried but then leave it to rust before discarding it. (Touchbar, butterfly keys, Trashcan Mac, USB 2.0 Lightning, dongles, WatchOS apps, Magic Mouse charging, Ping, Apple Maps, Me.com etc)

Apple should use this as an opportunity to reset the conversation and adopt RCS. There was a time that maybe it disrupted SMS but honestly most carriers offer unlimited SMS anyway so this is a moot point.

Your link doesn't show anything about iMessage market penetration.