Apple charges people to use iMessage by requiring you to use their hardware

Correction: iMessage is offered as a value-add to people who purchase supported Apple hardware (iPhones, Macs, iPads, Apple Watches).

That’s a positive way to formulate it. The more cynical formulation is that it is a way to lock people into the Apple ecosystem and (especially in the US) to apply social pressure to people to buy an iPhone.

Apple isn’t in the business of offering anything to Android users without getting anything in return. A value-add is something you offer only your existing or prospective customers, and that can have a lock-in effect, but only if you value it a lot. Keep in mind when iMessage launched, that it only worked with other iPhone users was a much heftier limitation because the smartphone market still had Symbian, BlackBerries, Windows Mobile, and Palm in it in addition to some very early Android models, and not everybody buying cellphones was buying smartphones yet.

> Do we provide recompense to YCombinator for using hackernews?

Yes. Asking this question is original content. My reply is additional. Those reading this thread are community members.

All of this drives the visibility of new YC batch application kickoffs. Ultimately, YC founders, and some of these early leads result in big investment returns.

iMessage is not free though?

Apple's "free" services are all dependent on you having bought apple products. When you buy a device, the "profit" on the hardware (the oft reference BoM only cost) also pays for the software development, the services, etc.

Claiming that anyone should be able to use those services because they're "free" is like saying anyone should be able to get free service at Toyota garages because Toyota does free service for people who bought a Toyota vehicle.

I think it's a lot more nuanced than that. Should we, as a society, allow companies to lock people into platforms, and discriminate against those who have decided not to fall prey to that lock-in? Especially when avoiding that lock-in (which is often a passive financial/economic choice, not an active rights/freedom one) actually causes social and emotional harm (the whole "green bubble bullying" is a real thing; yes, I think it's dumb too, but what we think is irrelevant).

Personally, I think the answer is "no", we should not allow that sort of thing. Profit is not the most important thing in the world, by far.

Your car analogy falls flat, as is the case with most car analogies. No one would expect to get free service at any garage, and that is unrelated to the topic at hand. You can go to any garage, and they're mostly not model specific; even when they are, there are plenty of third-party alternatives. (And this is why locking down car hardware/software such that only the manufacturer can provide service is a garbage practice that we should legally disallow.)

No it's not.

Running a service costs money.

That money has to come from somewhere.

Google makes that money by spying on people and using that for ads.

Apple makes that money by selling hardware.

You're saying that both companies should be required to provide the services they render, but apple's model of paying for it by selling hardware should be banned.

Also, go talk to someone who has bought a new car, and ask them how much their servicing costs. If they go to their manufacturer's service centers the regular services are free for the first few years, but if they go to an unrelated mechanic it costs money.

I do have a spare iPhone in a drawer, still works and can message on iMessage. There, I have purchased Apple hardware, now can I use iMessage on my Android phone?

No.

For the same reason that if you buy a game for xbox, and then when you later buy a playstation you can't turn around and demand that MS port the various xbox services to the playstation, or a publisher port an xbox game to playstation.