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

301–310 of 645 posts

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

#301

Post by rTX5CMRXIfFG »

singularity2001 wrote: post #54
Scubabear68 wrote: post #34

Misleading headline. This affects many apps and is much broader. In fact, this line from the article is far more serious: “Apple, for instance, will also need to contend with a reported requirement to allow side-loading of apps outside of its App Store, something it's spent years fighting internationally”.

>>> allow side-loading of apps outside of its App Store Just in time to replace that broken Siri thing with OpenAI based assistants! Previous app submissions were rejected on the basis of being "too close to existing functionality". Maybe they meant dysfunctionality? If the EU needs witnesses of anti-competitive behavior I volunteer.

Just because you can download apps from an app store that is other than Apple's own does not mean that you can replace Apple's default apps.

Considering the number of people who celebrated in response to your comment, I think I get it now why people support side-loading---they don't actually understand it and are merely projecting their own interpretations.

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

#302

Post by senkora »

luxcem wrote: post #241
Raed667 wrote: post #127

There was a brief period of time where I was able to use IRC, Facebook and MSN from the same client: Pidgin https://pidgin.im/

For a brief period Facebook was the biggest XMPP server, it was fun using OTR[1] on Facebook messenger. I think Whatsapp is still using XMPP under the hood but the server is closed. [1] https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/OTR

I remember they eventually added a feature to pretty-print OTR’d messages as something like .

When I saw that I figured they were aware and would soon start blocking it.

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

#303

Post by iSnow »

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…

I've heard the same when the US forced MS to allow different browsers as default, when the EU mandated a common charging port for mobiles and again when they mandated USB-C. I've yet to see the groundbreaking innovation that I am missing in the smartphone charging area that was suppressed by EU regulation.

This again is a talked up hypothetical problem at best. We've had chat for 30y now and while progress has been disruptive in the beginning, things have considerably consolidated.

I don't quite get what's so great about having to install 5 different chat clients just because your social network is too varied to force them onto one.

It's a case of corporate greed where sensible solutions (like licensing out the protocol) are not done to damage the opponent. I don't profit from this - if companies hadn't been this evil, the EU wouldn't have come down on them. If they don't like it, they can just stop selling smartphones in Europe.

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

#304

Post by kcartlidge »

baby wrote: post #288
idiotsecant wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it is actually going to make things worse, that's what regulation does in most cases. Yes all those regulations that actually make things worse. Which ones are those again? specifically? I find that generally people who make hand-wavey boogeyman 'regulation is bad' arguments typically struggle to identify which regulations are bad and why, and conveniently forget about the thousands of regulations that make their li…

The ones that created cookie popups everywhere. It’s horrible. It’s the worst. Everyone can see how horrible it is. Nobody understands why this is still a thing.

The regulations never mandated cookie popups.

Companies who decided to continue their invasive policies chose to implement those popups to provide legal cover. Non-invasive companies don't need to do that. The issue is with the companies, not the regulation.

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

#306

Post by ixwt »

rTX5CMRXIfFG wrote: post #300

I can't quite wrap my head around why people think that it is a good thing for Apple to be regulated into "opening up" (i.e. as opposed to being a "walled garden" platform). If I were an entrepreneur, and say that I wanted to fork a Unix-like OS so that I could make a cross-device OS for consumer hardware that I, too, make---shouldn't I have the right to program my OS to seamlessly integrate only with the apps and th…

According to this[0] post, the legislation only applies to 75 billion or more Euro companies.

So, you won't have to worry about that until you reach 75 billion Euros.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34996473

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

#307

Post by vanilla_nut »

brandon272 wrote: post #160
Raed667 wrote: post #127

There was a brief period of time where I was able to use IRC, Facebook and MSN from the same client: Pidgin https://pidgin.im/

I miss this a lot. Trillian and Adium were a couple of other clients that allowed this. It was really nice to have some choice among what client to use.

I fondly remember iChat from my younger years. XMPP was incredibly powerful -- I would kill for a single client app for signal, telegram, facebook messenger, whatsapp, and more today.

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

#308

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

rTX5CMRXIfFG wrote: post #300

I can't quite wrap my head around why people think that it is a good thing for Apple to be regulated into "opening up" (i.e. as opposed to being a "walled garden" platform). If I were an entrepreneur, and say that I wanted to fork a Unix-like OS so that I could make a cross-device OS for consumer hardware that I, too, make---shouldn't I have the right to program my OS to seamlessly integrate only with the apps and th…

Communication infrastructure is comparable to interstate networks, utilities, etc. If one is serving an appreciable percent of humanity expect to have your work, at least in part, and development avenues, decided for you by the governments representing the people you serve.

I believe there is a philosophical misunderstanding here. Your users do not exist to serve your whims. Your projects continued existence is not a right and is subject to the will of the people as decided by their representative governments. If that bothers you, perhaps you’re part of the problem? Collaboration is how humanity has survived so long and you’re seemingly arguing against that for your own fights of fancy without an iota of respect for the overwhelming population of people effected by your whims.

I struggle to wrap my head around how accomplished professionals can be so cavalier when speaking about civilization scale problems. I’m not sure if it’s hubris, mental illness, immaturity, or what. Regardless, it is revolting behavior to witness.

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

#309

Post by guestbest »

lopis wrote: post #133
guestbest wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought email already did all of this

Most of my friends don't frequently read their emails and have such bad inbox hygiene that I would expect them to miss half of my emails.

If they miss emails, then they’d probably miss a chat stream

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

#310

Post by dpratt »

klodolph wrote: post #270
Telemakhos wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

> I don’t think we need to identify Google’s motives as malicious

I would argue that the evidence over the past several years has shown that the default position w.r.t. to Google's motivations should not default to 'benign' under any circumstance. With all other things being equal, and without evidence to the contrary, it makes sense to operate under the assumption that Google will enthusiastically and universally do everything they can to violate your privacy in any manner available to them, no matter how subtle.

Post reply on HN