Despite DOJ lawsuit, Apple 'dead set against' iMessage on Android according to top insider

iMessage on iPhone displayed across three iPhone screens
(Image credit: Apple)

The latest lawsuit against Apple, this time from the Department of Justice, is focused on many things (although has less of a focus on the App Store than recent legislation from the European Union).

Aside from the suppression of "super apps" and gaming cloud apps, the lawsuit could lead to Apple making significant concessions across its products and services or paying a high fee.

Bloomberg's Mark Gurman, in his latest Power On newsletter, says that while some changes could happen, one item remains unthinkable for Apple at present - iMessage on Android.

While RCS is coming this year, Gurman says "the company will probably never enable iMessage on Android".

Noting that Apple will likely need to make it "easier to transfer data from an iPhone", Gurman says "The one big item that I think will never change, though, is bringing iMessage to Android.

"Apple is dead set against it," he adds.

Apple Watch heart rate monitor

Could Apple become more accomodating for other fitness trackers? (Image credit: Future)

What changes could Apple make?

While Gurman seems certain iMessage won't make the jump to the green side of the fence, he does believe there are some things Apple could do to respond to the DOJ lawsuit.

Apple currently keeps a tight grip on the NFC chip in its devices that it uses for Apple Pay in the name of security and privacy, but it also gets a royalty from Apple Pay transactions. The company has opened up some NFC restrictions in Europe, and Gurman says engineering work to do the same in the US is underway.

He also suggests Apple "should do more to support third-party devices on the iPhone, including watches", in response to complaints that the company makes it hard to adopt a fitness tracker that's not an Apple Watch.

"Besides opening up the NFC chip to third parties in the US, Apple will likely broaden its support of outside smartwatches, app stores, in-app payment services, physical trackers, browser engines and voice assistants."

After the furore over Apple's changes in the EU, it'll certainly be fascinating to see how much it'll change to satisfy the DOJ.

More from iMore

Lloyd Coombes
Contributor

Lloyd Coombes is a freelance writer with a specialism in Apple tech. From his first, hand-me-down iMac, he’s been working with Apple products for over a decade, and while he loves his iPhone and Mac, the iPad will always have his heart for reasons he still can’t quite fathom.

Since moving from blogging to writing professionally, Lloyd’s work can be found at TechRadar, Macworld, TechAdvisor and plenty more.

He’s also the Editor in Chief at GGRecon.com, and on the rare occasion he’s not writing you’ll find him spending time with his son, or working hard at the gym (while wearing an Apple Watch, naturally). You can find him on Twitter @lloydcoombes.

  • naddy69
    There is no reason to do that and the DOJ has no authority to demand that. Apple is not breaking any laws by having exclusive software on its own hardware.

    Are they next going to demand that Ford should include the option of a GM engine in a car? MacDonald's must allow Burger King to sell Big Macs? Windows should be available on Macs? Samsung browser should be available on iPhones?

    The DOJ is way off base with this suit. AGAIN, you can't have a "monopoly" on your own product.
    Reply
  • Just_Me_D
    naddy69 said:
    There is no reason to do that and the DOJ has no authority to demand that. Apple is not breaking any laws by having exclusive software on its own hardware.

    Are they next going to demand that Ford should include the option of a GM engine in a car? MacDonald's must allow Burger King to sell Big Macs? Windows should be available on Macs? Samsung browser should be available on iPhones?

    The DOJ is way off base with this suit. AGAIN, you can't have a "monopoly" on your own product.

    The DOJ knows they don’t have the authority and that this lawsuit is frivolous. With that being said, what’s the REAL purpose for this farce? Is this any attempt by the current administration to get money from Apple? Money is typically at the root of things like this.
    Reply