Microsoft CEO Would 'Welcome' Apple to Bring iMessage to Windows

[Kierkegaarden]

Does anyone think Microsoft still has further hardware ambitions? What would it take for them to get back into the mobile space?

If they’re touting a more open platform, wouldn’t this mean less friction for developers, or even a lateral move? Could this be what the move is all about?

 

[subjonas]

It only "solves" it imessage to imessage. It still relies on SMS fall back (the security they claimed). Adding RCS would eliminate the SMS security problems no matter who they are messaging (especially since android already incorporates this and would drive RCS adoption even higher once apple incorporated it as well).

Oh. I could only see Apple implementing rcs if it replaces sms. Probably not before, but maybe.

 

[Eorlas]

Every few weeks iMessage has a new vulnerability where a sequence of characters DoS the device. No thanks. I'll stick with Google Voice.

you are so unnecessarily dramatic to an extent that not even high schoolers stoop to

 

[d686546s]

The web-based route would work really well for Apple, similar to their FaceTime solution. iMessage could be a web-based app that anyone could use from Windows or Android, it would be clumsy and slow but no one could say that it's limited to Apple devices. If you want polish and speed, use an Apple device.

This is one of those things that probably sounds reasonable to a US audience and fails spectacularly everywhere else.

I've already bought their device and I would love to use iMessage more, but Apple restricting it to iOS just doesn't make it a viable alternative when competing with a very established cross-platform solution.

What am I supposed to tell my friends? They have to log on to a website to read my messages and they most likely get no meaningful notification? I've lived through the late 90s and early 00s, I really don't need that again.

Bottom line as an Apple customer outside the US: Apple actively undermines my customer experience by making this particular service unfeasible for me.

It's not the end of the world, Signal and WhatsApp work just fine, but instead of locking me in, Apple is locking me out of their service. To varying degrees, the same is probably true for many non-US customers.

 

[Rafagon]

That would actually benefit Apple more than Microsoft if they want to push iMessage utilization. Outside of the US no one uses it, and prefer to use Whatsapp or other platforms instead of having to guess what kind of phone or computer your recipient has.

How do you "have to guess" what kind of phone or computer your recipient has?

Blue text bubble = iDevice.

Green text bubble = Android.

What "guessing" are you talking about?

 

[Premium1]

Oh. I could only see Apple implementing rcs if it replaces sms. Probably not before, but maybe.

Agree. I think Google implementing it into their messages app (which many android OEM's are beginning to pre-install) will speed up the process a little since carriers continue to drag their feet with RCS.

 

[adampk17]

Agree. I think Google implementing it into their messages app (which many android OEM's are beginning to pre-install) will speed up the process a little since carriers continue to drag their feet with RCS.

The carrier being involved at all in what is included on a phone is big part of the turn off regarding Android, IMO

 

[tdar]

Literally my dream come true. Just add support for iPhone in My Phone. Come on Apple!!

 

[Minato1990]

Eww hell no

 

[iSayuSay]

I hope they don't do it. It's nice to know by the green if the person has a POS Android.

You can still be required to use iPhone or iPad to activate iMessage protocol. The Windows app could only be a mere gateway to send/receive.

 

[Abazigal]

You can still be required to use iPhone or iPad to activate iMessage protocol. The Windows app could only be a mere gateway to send/receive.

So basically something like WhatsApp web?

 

[KRiWOLF]

And people in hell want ice water..

 

[Beautyspin]

This is one of those things that probably sounds reasonable to a US audience and fails spectacularly everywhere else.

I've already bought their device and I would love to use iMessage more, but Apple restricting it to iOS just doesn't make it a viable alternative when competing with a very established cross-platform solution.

What am I supposed to tell my friends? They have to log on to a website to read my messages and they most likely get no meaningful notification? I've lived through the late 90s and early 00s, I really don't need that again.

Bottom line as an Apple customer outside the US: Apple actively undermines my customer experience by making this particular service unfeasible for me.

It's not the end of the world, Signal and WhatsApp work just fine, but instead of locking me in, Apple is locking me out of their service. To varying degrees, the same is probably true for many non-US customers.

Yup. I have an M1 MBP. I have messages. Except for a couple of my contacts, nobody uses messages. However, even those two contacts are on WhatsApp. So, WhatsApp is the preferred mode of communication for me. Doesn't matter whether I like WhatsApp or Signal. If all my contacts are on WhatsApp, that is where I have to be.

 

[Beautyspin]

I hope they don't do it. It's nice to know by the green if the person has a POS Android.

Well Android is not POS it is the dominant OS. What I mean is, there are more Android users who think iOS is POS than there are iOS users who think Android is POS. So, majority wins.

 

[MacBH928]

"One major theme of Windows 11 is its openness to third-party app marketplaces and Microsoft's end goal of making the platform a center of creativity outside the bounds of its own Microsoft App Store."

What a bizarre statement. Windows has always been open to third party app marketplaces. Look at Steam for one example.

This is just lazy corporate smack talking.

What this really translates to is "we're jealous of Apple's revenue on their App Store and our own attempt was a failure so we're going to try undermining Apple with this meaningless corporate platitude"

idk, Microsoft can just go back to selling Windows at $60 a pop and they would make loads of money. Try running a pirated version in this daily updates(or break your software) world and see what happens.

I am thinking Microsoft's flexible store will attract many many developers and they will make their money one way or the other.

 

[Alan Wynn]

Every few weeks iMessage has a new vulnerability where a sequence of characters DoS the device. No thanks. I'll stick with Google Voice.

Really? Can you provide a list of the last 10?

 

[Alan Wynn]

I think the author means the Microsoft Store's major theme (on Windows 11) is that it's now open to more third-party developers by supporting different app types and even completely removing their cut if the dev decides to not integrate the Microsoft payment system.

As long as the developer is not producing a game (the largest source of in-app payment on iOS/iPadOS, so not giving up that much). However, given how few developers use the Microsoft’s Windows application store, this is likely to be a big win for Microsoft if they are able to get more developers to use it (even those that generate no revenue for MS), as it might make their store a primary place for software distribution on the platform.

So it's not actually just smack talk, it's a huge change to the way Microsoft will offer software for Windows.

It is not a change at all to how Microsoft offers software, however it is Microsoft’s hope that it is a huge change to how other developers offer software, many of whom would now be paying Microsoft 12% (at a minimum) rather than the 0% they now give Microsoft (by not having their apps on Microsoft’s store at all.

This seems like an attempt to create a centralized location for users to find their preferred (authentic) applications without the need to navigate to their specific website to download.

This seems like an attempt to generate revenue by getting more developers who do not currently use the Microsoft store to do so in the future. In addition, if the store becomes viable, it might get some game companies to release through it, and those have to pay commission for in-app purchases.

 

[adampk17]

Well Android is not POS it is the dominant OS. What I mean is, there are more Android users who think iOS is POS than there are iOS users who think Android is POS. So, majority wins.

Uh, yeah. More means better.

Plus, you’re talking about one company vs what, a dozen or more?

 

[TimFL1]

The point I’m making is: iMessage does not want to be it. It never wanted to be it. It’s interesting how people want iMessage to be something it does not want to be. Apple does not want it to be the most used messaging platform. Most apple users don’t want it either.

i use what’s app and signal for my primary messaging. To users who have an iPhone, or don’t use WhatsApp, I use iMessage. Because,
1) it guarantees delivery through text message to all users
2) to iPhone users, a whole lot of exclusive features gets unlocked.

That’s what apple wants iMessage to be. That’s what I want iMessage to me. Apple users are happy with iMessage being exclusive, because new features can be bought in, without the weight of needing to deploy it in other platforms. If I want to use the lowest common denominator, the I can use what apps.

False. Before iMessage became iMessage, Apple proposed it to US carriers as a "next generation, secure texting solution" that should replace basic SMS. Carriers didn't bite due to the E2EE promise, so Apple went and did their own proprietary thing.

The statement "It never wanted to be" is absolutely false, it was just the wrong time and place back then. Not sure why this isn't more commonly known around here, there was a pretty big interview with Scott Forstall about this very topic a few years ago...

So basically something like WhatsApp web?

Maybe in spirit. WhatsApp web in its current form is a heavy compromise due to the nature of WhatsApps root origin (having a crap implementation focused on one device only). They're already close to rolling out proper multi-device support in the next handful of months. A web or Windows app for iMessage could function just like any of the native iMessage implementations on Apple devices, because that's how iMessage was designed to be anyways: multi-device.

That being said, there's already a Messenger that's arguably more secure than iMessage which works on plenty of devices without going the WhatsApp "needs to connect to your phone at all times" route: Signal

 

[Alan Wynn]

I have yet to see a single ad in my WhatsApp experience.

FaceBook has made it clear with their new ToS that they intend to monetize your data from WhatsApp. They have delayed this, but that is still their plan.

And sorry, I think you're wrong.

Please explain how having iMessage on Windows benefits Apple? Apple does not monetize iMessage and running it is purely a cost center for them.

Outside of the US, most people don't even know iMessage exists, and people think it is just plain old SMS, and those that do know it exists like myself refuse to use it as i don't know or care about what devices my recipients are using.

Let me try to follow your logic. In the U.S., Apple’s largest market, Apple’s market research (as well as a great deal of anecdotal evidence) says that having iMessage be exclusively on Apple hardware benefits them.

Outside the U.S., where Apple’s platform’s have the lowest penetration and, according to you “most people don’t even know iMessage exists”, Apple would benefit by supporting a cross platform version of iMessage on Windows (or maybe you are saying on Windows and Android) and spending money trying to advertise to get people to switch from the platform that you say everyone uses. However, since most people using it would not be doing so on an Apple platform, and since it was now cross platform this would not drive hardware sales. Worse still, in their most important market where the platform exclusivity benefits them, it would likely make it easier for people to leave their platforms.

In other words, they would spend money, developing and supporting a platform that would generate zero benefit for them. Why does this make sense?

Apple does have some functions that are device sellers. iMessage is not one of them.

You position is self contradictory. If iMessage does not sell hardware for them or make their ecosystem more sticky, they should stop supporting it, not make it a very expensive service from which they gain nothing.

 

[Alan Wynn]

False. Before iMessage became iMessage, Apple proposed it to US carriers as a "next generation, secure texting solution" that should replace basic SMS. Carriers didn't bite due to the E2EE promise, so Apple went and did their own proprietary thing.

Source?

The statement "It never wanted to be" is absolutely false, it was just the wrong time and place back then. Not sure why this isn't more commonly known around here, there was a pretty big interview with Scott Forstall about this very topic a few years ago...

Citation?

 

[Alan Wynn]

I’m glad iMessage is still a thing in the US but in the rest of the world it’s dead. If Apple wants to revive it, they should make it cross platform.

Why? How would it benefit them? In the U.S. being platform exclusive benefits them is neutral to beneficial, and outside the U.S. it does nothing to hurt them (every other messaging service runs on the platform as well). A cross platform service would just be a cost center for them and would be distraction to develop, market and support.

 

[mejsric]

prbably Appe do it, like Facetime.

 

[iSayuSay]

So basically something like WhatsApp web?

More like Telegram. Not totally require your iPhone on standby. At least not all time. But require activation on an iOS device. Be it an email address or a phone number.

 

[Alan Wynn]

I've already bought their device and I would love to use iMessage more, but Apple restricting it to iOS just doesn't make it a viable alternative when competing with a very established cross-platform solution.

Nor would creating a cross platform product make it easy to complete with established competitors.

What am I supposed to tell my friends? They have to log on to a website to read my messages and they most likely get no meaningful notification? I've lived through the late 90s and early 00s, I really don't need that again.

Instead you need to convince them to download yet another messaging app and create yet another account. How does this benefit them? They are perfectly happy using whatever they are using now.

Bottom line as an Apple customer outside the US: Apple actively undermines my customer experience by making this particular service unfeasible for me.

No it does not. You already have a service that works for you. Nothing Apple does makes that more difficult. How would it benefit Apple for you to get your non-Apple ecosystem friends using a completely cross platform product? Supporting the million different Android and Windows versions really well would take a great deal of work,d cost a lot of money and internal mindshare. In addition, once they offer it on other platforms, their complete control over it becomes much more problematic from an antitrust perspective. While they may eventually lose that battle, having a closed app and service one’s own platform is much more defensible legally than having that same locked service competing on every platform.

It's not the end of the world, Signal and WhatsApp work just fine, but instead of locking me in, Apple is locking me out of their service. To varying degrees, the same is probably true for many non-US customers.

To you it adds no value and does not really create any harm (you just do not use it and both Signal/WhatsApp are available), to others it does create a stickiness for the platform. Why, even if it was cross platform, would you want to try to get all your friends to move from Signal or WhatsApp to iMessages?