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

261–270 of 645 posts

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

#261

Post by kyboren »

scarface74 wrote: post #109
adam_arthur wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A fact that is not related to the discussion. There have been no laws towards fostering competition within walled gardens in either the US or EU until now. Apple had no app store competition until now. Do you contend the app store will not see material improvements in the future now that it finally has within bundle competition? Why has Apple suddenly started investing so heavily in Safari over the past year, now tha…

Apple has plenty of competition for their product that includes an App Store . If you don’t like their product, you’re free to get an Android device like 85% of the rest of the world and 2/3rd of the EU.

GlobalSuperMegaCorp has plenty of competition for their company town that includes a grocery store. If you don't like their company town, you're free to move to another town like 85% of the rest of the world.

Oh and BTW there are only two countries in the world, one of them is entirely comprised of GlobalSuperMegaCorp's monolith city-state company town, and the other is entirely comprised of company towns run by franchisees of OtherMassiveGlobalCorp.

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

#262

Post by JoeNr76 »

hwbehrens wrote: post #248
JoeNr76 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just that, it's removing barriers for competition. Which is what good regulations is all about. (and, technically it more than just bubble color, it's also including everyone in group chats)

I think what the (grand)parent would argue is that this isn't removing barriers to competition, it's removing competition itself . That is, iMessage is a feature provided by Apple that makes their products more compelling as compared to their competitors. By requiring Apple to provide this feature to their competitors, they lose one of the key differentiators that make their products "better" than their competitors.…

In the case of iMessage, Apple has a competitive advantage that stifles competition, not enhances it.

Setting a baseline for interoperability is not the same as requiring them all to be the same.

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

#263

Post by rkangel »

tekknik wrote: post #205
rkangel wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I talk to exactly one other person using "proper" Matrix to Matrix communication. Everything else I do is via bridges. I talk to people who are using WhatsApp and Signal clients, and I use it as an IRC client (it is an excellent IRC client).

Despite not using proper Matrix it still is enormously useful to me just by being a good client with good bridges.

For actual Matrix-Matrix comms I think Slack/Teams is probably a more realistic use-case to replace.

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

#264

Post by jrm4 »

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…

Citation please?

Seriously, there's no serious argument that suggests that this is the likelihood. Sometimes it gets better, sometimes it doesn't. The problem is, no one notices the good stuff due to regulation because you're just used to it.

Frankly, it's getting irritating that people aren't understanding this more?

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

#265

Post by phendrenad2 »

jrm4 wrote: post #264
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…

Citation please? Seriously, there's no serious argument that suggests that this is the likelihood. Sometimes it gets better, sometimes it doesn't. The problem is, no one notices the good stuff due to regulation because you're just used to it. Frankly, it's getting irritating that people aren't understanding this more?

Why is a citation needed for something that's logically obvious? Why do we need to provide links to an "expert" telling us 3+3=6 when we can just use a calculator?

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

#266

Post by JoeNr76 »

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…

It only targets big "platform providers" not startups. It even levels the playing field for those startups. People get so ideologically tangled that they just knee jerk.

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

#267

Post by dijit »

weberer wrote: post #246
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…

>Companies that are maliciously compliant are not the norm. How do you explain all these damn GDPR pop ups on every site that make it as difficult as possible to disagree?

That was indeed malicious compliance at a large scale.

New regulations were drafted that required these popups to be as easy to agree as to disagree, precisely because of this.

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

#268

Post by steno132 »

Horrible idea. Really what the regulation states is that iMessage must be interoperable with other chat apps.

In order words, if it wants to improve its service, it will need to get buy in from a committee of its competitors.

This is a solution in search of a problem. Consumers today can choose from iMessage, Telegram, WhatsApp, Slack, Google Chat. There's competition, and there's so many great options for each person. This regulation can only make things worse.

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

#269

Post by [deleted] »

mattrighetti wrote: post #222
dijit wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [..] 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 parti…

> The only antidote to this is regulations. Well, I respectfully disagree, I'm a firm believer that regulations disproportionately hurt smaller businesses in the long run because those giants that have the monopoly move way faster than governments and they usually have thousands of smart lawyers ready to find holes and exploit/get around regulations made, usually, by people that does not understand the subject enough…

[deleted]

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

#270

Post by klodolph »

Telemakhos wrote: post #249
tekknik wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except in this case there are no lives being saved, it’s turning green bubbles blue. That’s all this regulation is really about.

Is it really only about bubble color, or also about encryption? Apple goes to great lengths to secure those blue bubbles, even as group texts. Green bubbles are not secure, and Google is pushing an interoperability standard that does not secure group chats because Google likes reading your comms for its advertising business.

I don’t think we need to identify Google’s motives as malicious. Google has been trying to get people to use its own messaging apps, but Google missed the boat, bungled the user experience, and kept confusing people with new apps.

Google would probably love it if Android shipped with a Google-branded, end-to-end encrypted messaging app that people liked to use.

I think that there is a combination of internal Google problems and problems in Google’s relationships with Android vendors that makes this difficult. And then, any such app would be probably be in, what, 6th place at this point? Meanwhile, Meta has apps #1 and #2.

Post reply on HN