> You assert that Apple has a specific intent and goal concerning bullying; “what is already happening” proves very little in that regard.

I assert that a company like Apple would have no problem with interoperability of their messenger. They wouldn't have a problem releasing an iMessage app for Android. They still don't do it.

I also assert that they profit from the resulting toxic situation, as people are forced to change to their environment if they don't want to be excluded in their social circles.

Ergo: it must be intended.

> But “what is [actually] happening” is you trying to flip it on me by trying to make your lack of supporting evidence my problem, only to continue and essentially claim that no further evidence is necessary because “it’s happening.”

I questioned the naive presentation of your request. You can't be serious, requesting from me (or anybody) some kind of written statement which would write down what is actually happening. Who would do that? For what reason? Who is this statement supposed to serve internally if the policy to prevent interoperability suffices? So why should there be anything?

I also don't see how this is even relevant because it is happening. We're faced with the facts I've written above. It is their day-to-day business to keep up this toxic situation for no other reason.

Besides that, there is of course the Epic lawsuit: https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/9/22375128/apple-imessage-an...

> Yes, of course, it’s easy to blame it on the people that do the actual bullying.

If you create an environment where this bullying develops, you are to blame first.

And it's not like this is something users came up. It is a pain in the ass for both sides affected. But it is not because of what those users do. It is because the communication protocol makes it so.

> To my knowledge iMessage isn’t even actively advertised

Why would they have to? It's a native communication environment.

> The only thing they could do to “do something about it” is to give away their IP or lessen the value of their IP. Those are pretty sane reasons not to do it.

They don't have to give up anything. They could have made an iMessage app for Android. Apple users would still use it as it's the native tool to communicate on their devices. People know it and obviously are even now too lazy to switch to much better, safer, etc. tools. This is a common trope in software. The only thing they'd actually lose is the pressure on Android users. This is of course also "sane" if you don't care about the toxicity you create and only care about profits. Which is what I said they do.

> Others can also do something about it, and it would be without much effort.

I assume you didn't follow the Beeper story: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/22/technology/apple-iphone-b...

> This notion that someone can do something about something and therefore has a moral obligation and the moral liability to do something is quite a slippery slope, one that I’m not even opposed to on principle because many people are in ridiculously inhumane conditions just in the US alone.

What's wrong about a "slippery slope" to better moral standards?

> Conditions that are much worse than being bullied for not having a blue bubble, conditions we all collectively have created and benefit from, and conditions that could all be solved tomorrow if we all decided we could do something about it with little to no effort on individuals in this collective.

The whole business model plays upon a systematic problem within our capitalistic system. It thrives from envy, greed and loose moral standards. You saying that people who grew up within this system, being told how great it is and how special they can be if they wave their expensive device in front of the faces of others can be "simply" overcome by everybody deciding they could just not participate in it is at least naive.

At this point, I really wonder why you just don't proudly admit that they're successful with what they do and that they should be proud about how well this works, since the moral outline of your argumentation points exactly to this. It says that people are idiots, and they are supposed to be milked by companies which follow the line the system draws.

> I haven’t seen people here in HN promote or defend bullying

Just like the company itself doesn't have to say that explicitly because it is already built into this situation, you won't see it said explicitly on HN. However, it doesn't mean that it is intended. You do defend this practice here.

Also, it is being promoted if you don't get on with your tinder match because the color of your bubble shows that you can't afford an iPhone or if you're being thrown off your classes group because people are annoyed with the shortcomings of your communication and so on.

As I said: I don't blame those people. Their argument is reasonable. It's a pain to communicate with Android users. The fact that we're already one step further and people who didn't even experience the pain "discriminate" because they KNOW it's a pain doesn't make those people worse. They are only better informed about the toxic situation Apple keeps up.

> Let’s keep it classy and save the ad hominems for the back alley.

I didn't intend to aim that sentence at you. It was aimed at Apple.