zlacker

>>quenti+(OP)
I think you're forgetting the main reason: the group of people using it to communicate is really small and shrinking every year.

The only large group of people who still primarily use SMS to communicate person-to-person is Android users in the USA.

Every other country has settled on either Telegram, WeChat, WhatsApp or FB Messenger, or other niche apps. These apps work on both iOS and Android and often also Windows. I haven't sent an SMS in probably 12 years. I don't know anyone who has.

It's only in the US that iMessage is so prevalent that Android users have to use SMS, the only other way of messaging iOS devices. And the US is quickly becoming a de-facto iOS only country. It already has more than 50% market share, even 80% among young people.

With the US going (almost) full iMessage and the rest of the world having already settled on another app there simply no point to supporting SMS.

>>apexal+Lb
this really speaks to the urgent need of making interoperability legally mandatory for the bigger actors so one isn't socially forced to use one or two applications that are provided by a private actor

>>dureui+Vq
The answer doesn't always have to be larger governments and more oversight.

Users can switch to another OS if they really cared that Apple refuses to use industry standards, hamstrings their own mobile browser to bolster app sales, and violates antitrust laws with their ban on third party browser rendering engines.

>>_heimd+8A
The reality is that leveraging closed networks to gain effective monopolies (with all their known harmful effects) is a winning strategy with little counter strategies.

Users cannot switch to another OS because if they do they won't be able to communicate with social circle. This is also completely artificial because the networks have otherwise pretty much the same feature sets and are only distinguished by their accreted userbase.

Concurrent cannot compete because they can't gain enough users to get a critical mass

I wager that no single entity should have so many captive users.

Regulation is clearly in order

>>dureui+zI
> I wager that no single entity should have so many captive users.

100% agree here, we've collectively picked convenience and shiny objects over everything else so often that we're left with a handful of companies with way too much power and reach

> Regulation is clearly in order

I disagree, or at least hope,this isn't our best or only option left. If it is the only thing that would work though, at least its something