Live data from Hacker News

EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

protocol.com

341–350 of 645 posts

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

#341
post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

“Not benign” and “not malicious” can both be true. Google is motivated by self-interest, is staffed by engineers which have various conflicting self-interest and ideologies, and has a culture with various competencies and dysfunctions. Sometimes Google will do things that benefit consumers and sometimes Google will do things that harm consumers, but it’s not out of altruism nor is it out of malice.

Same as other large companies.

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

#342
post #174

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…

> [...] 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…

Respectfully, Americans can have this take because we created an environment where these companies could flourish. There is no European messaging standard for us to regulate because no European business could get to that point at all.

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

#343
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…

> 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.

[dead]

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

#344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've been thinking about building one. I currently have too many other projects though, so this is going to be my next one, when I'm more or less satisfied with my ActivityPub server. It's so strange that no one has even tried to fill the niche for a modern desktop multi-protocol IM app. The one I have in mind would be properly-desktop though — multiple windows, 100% native controls, complete ignorance towards touchscreens, etc.

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

#345

As nice as interoperability (and the accompanying possibility of something like a modern-day Adium) is, I worry that this will introduce SMS' rampant spam problems to iMessage and the various other messaging services that will also be required to open up. Part of the reason spam is so rare on iMessage is because it requires an iCloud account on an Apple device, which not only raises the barrier to entry significantly…

[deleted]

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

#346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But email does keep a history. IRC didn’t push a history to the client until v3 I think

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

#347
The seems to be an organized slow and steady push to turn computers into consoles for the vast majority of users. They use "privacy" "security" "protect children" etc etc as methods to move closer in this direction. I worry we will end up with one (or two) unified "approved" messaging platform and all sorts of tech will be added to your device as binary blobs that run scans on your device.

Looking and ChromeOS, iOS, and even direction taking by Windows 11.

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

#348

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…

>Isn't this going to kill features that only some apps have or offer? What if one day Signal, Telegram or WhatsApp... Okay, this is where I think we need to make clear who this requirement applies to. If we click through the first link, found in the first sentence in the article, to the actual source text[0] and run it through Google Translate, we can find that this requirement only applies to companies... >... whose…

According to this wouldn't Microsoft have to open up Teams and LinkedIn Messages?

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

#349

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's there to do 'differently' about a chat client? They haven't changed in the last 30 years or so. "Special features" could still be implemented by non-standard protocol extensions while still being able to exchange bare bones messages with all clients which accept the standard protocol.

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

#350
post #283

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…

The fallacy HERE is "individual preferences accurately reflect collective good." Again, there's no clear-cut answer at any given time whether or not "this particular possibly-restrictive regulation is good for everyone." Sometimes it is, sometimes it ain't. That's what you use democracy/government for, to figure these things out.

The whole point of market economies is to let people vote with their resources. The alternative of having people vote for a representative body that regulates how they transact is far worse. Best case you get a almost as good outcome. Worst case is 49.9% of people suffer horribly under state enforced "social good".
Post reply on HN