Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

protocol.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 645 posts

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#201

Post by tekknik »

chimeracoder wrote: post #171
sdfghswe wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't care about any features, apart from the features you care about. Just like everyone else.

> You don't care about any features, apart from the features you care about. Just like everyone else. That's a pretty uncharitable way to interpret the statement, when the three features OP mentioned are a part of literally every modern messaging platform that people use. Not just iMessage and RCS (the open protocol which is the best analog to iMessage), but WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, Discord, Messenger, Instagram,…

It doesn’t matter if it’s an obscure protocol, if it’s used in a large business then they must comply. Wait until discord or any of the gaming focused media apps try to unify on features.

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#202

Post by shaky-carrousel »

ericmay wrote: post #177
shaky-carrousel wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, apple hardware is better. And now software will be better too.

Overall the experience will be worse. No doubt about that. Features like the Privacy Nutrition Scorecard (I can't remember what it's actually called) won't be nearly as powerful, for example, because other giant multi-national corporations will just create their own app stores to avoid playing by Apple's rules and "paying the Apple tax", which is something that they have to pay and end consumers don't. I.e. it's just…

Yeah, like Android. 10 app stores and today nobody downloads their apps from Google Play anymore. Also all Androids are full of viruses too. Those reckless grandmas and their Android phones...

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#203

Post by BeFlatXIII »

willyt wrote: post #86

If everyone's messaging has to be compatible with everyone else's then maybe we will finally only need one messaging app on our phones again instead of 5. Sounds great. I just want to be able to send messages without thinking about which app I need to go into to communicate with a particular person; that really breaks my flow when I'm trying to get something done. I don't give a shit about any features apart from pic…

I already have all the emojis I need in Unicode. Only need to send multimedia reliably and have groups.

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#204

Post by [deleted] »

mattrighetti wrote: post #191
dijit wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [...] without actually realising that it is actually going to make things worse, that's what regulation does in most cases. Feels like a uniquely american take. Companies that are maliciously compliant are not the norm. Leaving behind that most is an ambiguous enough term that means you could basically discredit anything I come up with, how do you feel about regulations that limit the use of harmful or toxic chemic…

> Regulations are the only tool that society has to prevent companies acting against the social good. The fallacy here is that you don't get to decide what "social good" is, especially in this case. People get to choose what is good for them, we're talking about tech products here. I see regulations in this specific case as something that goes against progress, whatever that means for the company of your favorite mes…

[deleted]

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#205

Post by tekknik »

rkangel wrote: post #121
willyt wrote: post #86

If everyone's messaging has to be compatible with everyone else's then maybe we will finally only need one messaging app on our phones again instead of 5. Sounds great. I just want to be able to send messages without thinking about which app I need to go into to communicate with a particular person; that really breaks my flow when I'm trying to get something done. I don't give a shit about any features apart from pic…

The solution I use to minimise this is Element One ( https://element.io/element-one ). This is a paid for service that operates bridges from Matrix to Signal, WhatsApp and Telegram. I then get to communicate with all those contacts in one place (I'm on Android so iMessage not a problem). I signed up the moment it came out and they had some teething reliability problems for a while, but it's been great for months now.…

Matrix comes up quite often here. Tell me why, even as a nerd, I want to run a server and get my friends and family to join to chat, instead of them opening the built in app and just having at. This is a non-starter.

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#206

Post by mattrighetti »

owlbite wrote: post #190
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What sort of features would prevent a client from receiving a text-based message? XMPP used to work across platforms but commercial interests killed it. Surely, messaging clients can publish a protocol and provide a reference library for others to use to directly contact users on their platforms?

Well looking at Apple's more recent features for iMessage, Animoji and Memoji related features are presumably non-trivial to slap into an existing app.

I was thinking just about those, same goes for reactions for messages on other platforms, stickers, etc.

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#207

Post by kjreact »

chimeracoder wrote: post #171
sdfghswe wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't care about any features, apart from the features you care about. Just like everyone else.

> You don't care about any features, apart from the features you care about. Just like everyone else. That's a pretty uncharitable way to interpret the statement, when the three features OP mentioned are a part of literally every modern messaging platform that people use. Not just iMessage and RCS (the open protocol which is the best analog to iMessage), but WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, Discord, Messenger, Instagram,…

I similarly interpreted OP as someone who only wants basic features in messaging while the reply implies that not everyone views those three features as the only necessary features. Nothing uncharitable about saying that everyone’s needs are different.

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#208

Post by ericmay »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #185
ericmay wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Overall the experience will be worse. No doubt about that. Features like the Privacy Nutrition Scorecard (I can't remember what it's actually called) won't be nearly as powerful, for example, because other giant multi-national corporations will just create their own app stores to avoid playing by Apple's rules and "paying the Apple tax", which is something that they have to pay and end consumers don't. I.e. it's just…

>which is something that they have to pay and end consumers don't. I.e. it's just a payment negotiation between big corporations. I'm sure the execs sell a yacht to pay their Apple taxes target than pass on costs as they do for everything else. /s

It's like this:

There's a price that the market (consumers) will bear to pay for a service. Let's call it MyBigBrand and you charge $5/month or idk, $10 for a one-time purchase.

Apple charges whatever their fee is, let's call it 30%, and they keep this fee and do lots of things with it including buy back stock and reinvest in improving their services.

MyBigBrand comes along and says hey that's not fair! They launch a marketing campaign "The Apple Tax" and file lawsuits. Courts decide Apple should allow 3rd-party app stores or that they can't charge the fee or have to reduce it.

In each of those scenarios, MyBigBrand continues to charge customers $5/month for their product. All that's occuring here is whether or not MyBigBrand gets to pay less to Apple or whether Apple gets to continue to charge MyBigBrand and eat into their margins.

For a consumer you still pay the same fee for the product, or potentially you have to download some other app store that MyBigBrand owns or collaborates with MyOtherBigBrand on and then they split the costs and keep more of the margin.

At the end of the day people are being duped into really caring about who gets to keep more of their money and it just doesn't matter, except that it appears Apple does something beneficial with the money they keep and having multiple app stores with exclusive apps will suck and be annoying.

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#209

Post by dijit »

mattrighetti wrote: post #191
dijit wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [...] without actually realising that it is actually going to make things worse, that's what regulation does in most cases. Feels like a uniquely american take. Companies that are maliciously compliant are not the norm. Leaving behind that most is an ambiguous enough term that means you could basically discredit anything I come up with, how do you feel about regulations that limit the use of harmful or toxic chemic…

> Regulations are the only tool that society has to prevent companies acting against the social good. The fallacy here is that you don't get to decide what "social good" is, especially in this case. People get to choose what is good for them, we're talking about tech products here. I see regulations in this specific case as something that goes against progress, whatever that means for the company of your favorite mes…

> [..] you don't get to decide what "social good" is

Well, technically I have a say, I elect my leaders and can write to them with my opinion. Often it is the case that salesmen and charletons get into those positions but the basic premise of those positions is that they're intended to act in the social good. What you propose is that somehow tech companies will act in the social good by themselves, which I find particularly dubious.

All capitalist companies (and by that I mean, any company that is enjoying success in a capitalist society) have an often unstated goal of monopolising their market.

It is a natural outcome of competition that eventually there is a victor. The whole premise of capitalism is that competition is good, but eventually the strongest will win and you have a monopolistic leader.

The only antidote to this is regulations.

Making the argument that regulation hurts smaller companies is also something uniquely American. This regulation (and many other tech regulations) are really aimed at people abusing their position today, not some theoretical startup that somehow captures 60% of a market overnight.

FWIW, I actually really like iMessage and agree with the decision Apple made not to open it, but I can't abide talk like this because a lot of people seem to think that regulation is somehow anti-capitalist, when in reality regulation is the only thing that could keep the capitalist machine running once there is a monopoly position or a sufficient moat around a service.

Re: EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

#210

Post by wakannai »

mattrighetti wrote: post #165

This sounds nice, but when you really think about the consequences it really is not. Isn't this going to kill features that only some apps have or offer? What if one day Signal, Telegram or WhatsApp want to implement something "different" that could make messaging better but this policy is making things harder to implement because it would be impossible to make it interoperate with other messaging apps? I don't get w…

> What if one day Signal, Telegram or WhatsApp want to implement something "different" that could make messaging better but this policy is making things harder to implement because it would be impossible to make it interoperate with other messaging apps?

That's still possible. The company owning that platform just has to ensure that its services are accessible by any client. Protocols/APIs can still be further developed or brand new ones introduced. But they still have to be documented & be made accessible.

Post reply on HN