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

321–330 of 645 posts

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

#321

Post by fluidcruft »

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…

Signal, Telegram and WhatsApp aren't baked into the devices people buy, though. I don't know if that is a valid distinction in terms of the EU's thinking, but it's one I would be perfectly happy with.

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

#323

Post by doublerabbit »

sdfghswe wrote: post #287
kjreact wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly. For example, I care about pictures and emojis but not groups. And groups crucially is the one thing that (from what I hear) is extremely non-trivial to do well alongside with E2E encryption. So nothing "basic" about it, it turns out.

I care for all three and if you were to cater to those outside of the clique HN culture. Groups are a required must.

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

#324

Post by RHSeeger »

dijit wrote: post #209
mattrighetti wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 parti…

> 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.

That's ridiculous. There's plenty of companies that want to do what they do well and make a good profit, but have no interest in being the only player in their market.

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

#325

Post by doublerabbit »

tekknik wrote: post #201
chimeracoder wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Which they've already started with XBOX and PS integrations.

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

#326

Post by doublerabbit »

guestbest wrote: post #309
lopis wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And that's IRC in the nutshell, until you joined you have no history of any conversation. Sure you can scroll up in future apps like Discord but barely few read the channel conversations when they join a new server.

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

#327

Post by Vt71fcAqt7 »

MattJ100 wrote: post #243
danrl wrote: post #224

A convenient first step for European governments towards killing effective end-to-end cryptography usage in everyday messaging. It used to be checks notes „terrorism“ and „child safety“ and now the hot new thing is „interoperability“. Who would have thought, that of all the above, „interoperability“ would be the one that makes it into legislation.

Fact check: The Digital Markets Act explicitly calls out end-to-end encryption as a feature that MUST be preserved if the platform supports it. From Article 7: "The level of security, including the end-to-end encryption, where applicable, that the gatekeeper provides to its own end users shall be preserved across the interoperable services."

The way appositives work is that they qualify the preceding subject. Here you have two appositives so you can read "where applicable" as qualifying "including end-to-end encryption" or "the level of security." If "where applicable" is qualifying "the level of security" the staement reads "the level of security, where applicable, that the gatekeeper provides to its own end users shall be preserved accross the interoperable services." (And this seems to me the most accurate meaning. In any case it can be read that way.) Even if it is qualifying "the level of security" it is still in the end only "where applicable" which can still be read to mean the same thing. In fact, reading "where applicable" to mean "where already existing" as you implied, is redundant because it is already given in "shall be preserved" and "the level of security." Now we can read "where applicable" to imply that e2ee does not apply when the EU says it shouldn't.

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

#329

Post by fluidcruft »

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,…

Sounds like what you really need is a contacts manager that links to recent conversations with them. You know who you want to contact, you pull them up and navigate to the relevant convos or apps.

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

#330

Post by crazygringo »

baby wrote: post #292

Honestly I don’t get it. I don’t know anyone who uses iMessage besides my apple store. Everyone I know uses whatsapp.

The second paragraph makes clear that WhatsApp will need to open up equivalently.

In other words, iMessage will need to be able to send messages to WhatsApp, and WhatsApp needs to be able to send messages similarly to iMessage.

Post reply on HN