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

401–410 of 645 posts

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

#401

Post by sbuk »

smoldesu wrote: post #198
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.

The regulation was originally an antitrust case leveled against Apple by the European Commission. It contained many things that are unrelated to saving human lives, but will make developers and users lives better in the long run. We do this because the status quo (Apple having unfettered control over their ecosystem) hasn't worked out for people outside of the ecosystem. In lieu of trusting the world's largest compan…

Developers lives, not necessarily users. It was also a huge waste of time and money for all parties as it achieves nothing - Facebook are the market leader with WhatsApp both globally an in Europe - iMessage barely registers in the top 5.

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

#402

Post by ClumsyPilot »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #265
jrm4 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because you are getting the basics of economics wrong.

You have spent many years of schooling learning to count. Have you studied economics for at least 1 year of formal education? Have you read a book by a real economist?

Read 'Economics, the user's guide'. This is not how they think, this is not how they argue.

What we have here, is a person who hasnt learnt math arguing that 3 + 3 = 7 and claiming it's logically obvious.

Or like a medieval scientist arguing that Spontaneous Generation (Mice spawn in straw by themselves) is a law of physics and it's logically obvious.

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

#403

Post by hcurtiss »

MattJ100 wrote: post #213
tekknik wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it a poor fallback? It supports less but mostly it’s a message size limitation. This seems like exactly what they want.

The DMA requires interoperability without a decrease in security - this explicitly includes end-to-end encryption, which iMessage supports. Since SMS has no standard for key distribution/discovery, it already fails at that hurdle. It also requires that features such as group messaging and audio/video calling.

So, let me get this straight -- the EU is now requiring end to end encryption? Haven't they been harping this whole time on how that enables child predators?

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

#404

Post by eatsyourtacos »

rTX5CMRXIfFG wrote: post #388
eatsyourtacos wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this thread is from the EU- but I'm giving the US perspective here just FYI. >There's is a near infinite number of competitors to iMessage 50% of phones in the US are apple phones. Nearly everyone is exclusively using iMessage (and doesn't even realize that it's proprietary while trying to mix in SMS). Hardly anyone uses anything like whatsapp here. Good luck getting any somewhat older person to use multiple m…

How is your entire comment not a mere assumption that the issue is within iMessage itself and not other logically possible factors, such as your carrier, your reception, or your mother using her phone incorrectly? Also, allowing alternative messaging apps to be installed in your OS is exactly the opposite of “flagrant abuse”.

>How is your entire comment not a mere assumption that the issue is within iMessage itself and not other logically possible factors, such as your carrier, your reception, or your mother using her phone incorrectly?

Because it's not an isolated incident. I've heard many people complain about the exact same thing online over the years. Just google it and you will see. Is it rare? Sure. But it's also not uncommon.

You point to "logically possible factors", but I never experienced ANY issues with SMS to SMS on android where a problem would be invisible. With SMS iMessage, the problem would be invisible: looks sent from one side, but the other has zero indication of an issue.

And Apple is under no incentive to 'fix' this or guarantee it never happens because they have a blatant interest in everyone using iMessage by getting iphones.

Is this slightly conspiracy theory talk? I agree it borders that. But I also think it's 100% realistic.

>Also, allowing alternative messaging apps to be installed in your OS is exactly the opposite of “flagrant abuse”.

Apple SPECIFICALLY does not open up iMessage to non-Apple platforms because they want you to buy their phones- something they share a duopoly with. That is the very DEFINITION of market abuse.

If Microsoft had some Windows-only messaging platform, most people on this site would be all up in arms about it.

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

#405

Post by ajsnigrutin »

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…

> 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?

Just open the standard/api/protocol, document it, and it'll get integrated into pidgin or some other alternative within a few days. Currently it's not a problem of not having apps trying to integrate protocols, but protocol designers intentionally locking other apps out of the ecosystem.

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

#406

Post by deaddodo »

imp0cat wrote: post #38
deaddodo wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what this sign is supposed to mean, can you give some deeper context?

Neighborhood watch using Whatsapp.

Yes, I can also Google translate. That wasn’t the question. The question was: “What does that mean? And why is it particularly nefarious/concerning?”

If I said “Neighborhood watch at /r/MyNeighborNameWatchDiscussion on reddit”, is that concerning too?

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

#407

Post by _cenw »

dcow wrote: post #385
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 don't get why you would regulate such a thing. Because there's absolutely no downside to telling Apple it can't artificially make its iMessage platform restricted to Apple devices. We literally have seen leaked emails where Apple deliberately does this as an anti-consumer platform lock in play. The slippery slope hypothetical you provide is not the reality. Nobody is asking governments to regulate adding cool new…

> It's like you don't believe it's possible with the countless man years of resources these companies have to have software both interoperate and degrade gracefully when one client doesn't support all protocol features. I don't buy it, I believe we can.

Every instance of that is a huge guesswork mess that I wouldn't wish upon average people to navigate though. RCS has tons of "maybe implement" features, and don't even get me started on the mess that's XMPP. If you ever tried to use OMEMO from two different clients at once, you know what I'm talking about.

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

#408

Post by adam_arthur »

dustedcodes wrote: post #322

I don't get it. Isn't SMS the cross platform open standard to send text messages? Why force a proprietary product to open up? Feels like a big overreach of governmental powers.

Wouldn't the world be a better place with interoperable messaging standards and needing only a single messaging app for global communication?

Yes.

Is this happening organically via market forces?

No. That's why.

If there were a common standard that was widely supported and cross-app compatible, these regulations wouldn't have happened. Email doesn't cut it for real time messaging. Governments will pursue no brainer policy like this if the private sector doesn't reach the conclusion on their own.

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

#409

Post by _cenw »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #405
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…

> 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? Just open the standard/api/protocol, document it, and it'll get integrated into pidgin or some o…

But also, you generally want to iterate faster than "write a new spec and wait 2 years for implementations to support half of it". The alternative to which is just implementing it and hoping the other party can somehow make sense of it. Emoji reactions being supported by only a few activitypub implementations is an example of it.

This is incidentally the reason moxie cited for not making Signal federated.

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

#410

Post by conor- »

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/

You can do that today with Matrix and whatever client you want (albeit with much more friction than what was previously possible).

There a bunch of bridges[0] available for pretty much any communication network you can think of and some people even go so far as to use their Matrix client for email too.

[0] https://matrix.org/bridges/

Post reply on HN