What Apple and Android Might Teach Us About Collaboration in Aging Services

Over the past few months, I’ve been in a number of conversations with aging services leaders—nonprofit providers working through affiliation, considering shared services, or testing new partnerships. There’s a steady drumbeat of interest in collaboration, but also a fair amount of hesitation. The reasons are familiar: Will we lose our identity? Will this become too complex? How do we work together without becoming the same?

And then, seemingly unrelated, I read about Apple and Android finally collaborating on their messaging platforms. The comparison stuck with me.

For over a decade, Apple’s iMessage and Android’s SMS/MMS systems didn’t play well together. Messages between the platforms lost functionality, quality, and often basic features—like read receipts, typing indicators, or even photo resolution. The experience was fragmented, frustrating, and outdated. Users hated it.

Eventually, Apple agreed to adopt RCS (Rich Communication Services), a more advanced messaging protocol already supported by Android. The update doesn’t merge the two ecosystems, but it improves interoperability dramatically. It’s a shift driven by consumer pressure, evolving technology, and the realization that collaboration—even among fierce competitors—can expand the pie.

The moment feels oddly relevant to our field.

We’re facing our own fragmentation challenges in aging services. Different models (LPCs, HCBS, PACE), missions, technologies, and organizational cultures. And yet, the people we serve—residents, families, communities, payors—don’t experience those differences as meaningful. They experience delays in care transitions. Repetitive assessments. Limited access. Workforce burnout. High costs.

So, what can the Apple–Android détente offer us?

• 1. Interoperability Doesn’t Require Homogeneity

  Apple didn’t stop being Apple. It didn’t rebrand iMessage or hand over control. It simply created a better way to communicate across systems. In the same way, nonprofit providers can preserve their identity and mission while finding shared ways to deliver services, coordinate care, and invest in the future. Collaboration doesn’t have to mean consolidation.

• 2. End-User Experience Must Drive the Effort

  What finally moved Apple wasn’t internal logic—it was pressure from outside. Consumers were fed up. In aging services, the pressure is also external: Families want simpler navigation. Staff want systems that support—not hinder—their work. Payors want better outcomes for less money. Our structures should evolve based on what those we serve need most.

• 3. Expanding the Pie vs. Fighting Over Slices

  By opening up messaging functionality, Apple didn’t lose customers—it made its ecosystem more attractive to everyone. The same is true for providers. We have more to gain by aligning thoughtfully (on workforce, data, or purchasing, for example) than by protecting siloed systems that no longer serve us well.

• 4. Sometimes It Takes a Nudge

  Let’s be honest—Apple didn’t just have a change of heart. Regulatory pressure from the EU and growing antitrust scrutiny helped move the needle. In our space, similar forces are at work: shifting state reimbursement models, pressure to engage in value-based care, rising workforce costs, and increasing demand for proof of outcomes. The incentives are changing, and alignment is becoming less optional.

• 5. Start Where It Matters

  Apple isn’t solving every problem overnight. They’re starting with messaging. We can take the same approach. What are the “RCS equivalents” in our field? Places where improving communication, connection, or coordination would deliver real value to the people we serve—without requiring us to fully merge or rewire everything?

If Apple and Android—two companies with vastly different philosophies and business models—can find a way to talk to each other, it’s worth asking what that looks like for us.

How do we design shared infrastructure that doesn’t erase individuality?
How do we collaborate without becoming uniform?
And how do we put the people we serve at the center of that design?

It’s not a perfect analogy. But it might be just enough to spark a better conversation.

I’d love to hear your perspective.
Where are you seeing promising examples of alignment in aging services that preserve identity while creating real value? What small shifts could we make today that would move us closer to a more connected future?

Let’s keep the conversation going.