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

421–430 of 645 posts

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

#421

Post by hellojesus »

smoldesu wrote: post #390
hellojesus wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People vote with their dollars. If people don't like the dumb messaging, they can move to a different platform. With infinite amounts of other free apps, why are regulations necessary? Let people decide for themselves.

The same could be said for Disneyland, but it's not an excuse to let Disney engage in lawless conduct as long as it's within the park.

Yes, but users choose to visit sites like they choose to visit a park. They would know the risks before going.

The lawlessness described here isn't harm on a third party against their consent. It's fully known by both parties at the time of the voluntary transaction.

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

#422

Post by fnordpiglet »

mort96 wrote: post #293
baby wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It made browsing the web an inferior experience for all users. Come on. Let’s not continue this charade and just accept a valid argument when you see one

I agree. These companies are making the web a worse experience for all users. I wish they would stop. At the very least I get the option to not be tracked on those shitty websites, but I would really, really have preferred if they didn't make me go through all those intentionally confusing and probably illegal steps to opt out of tracking.

Did providing a pop up on every website you visit saying they use cookies enable your ability to use the accept no cookies feature browsers have had since Netscape navigator? Was a regulation required to enable a feature of all browsers since the dawn of graphical browsers? Or are you saying the regulation allows you to remember that literally every website in existence uses cookies since you forget between websites?

I’m trying to figure out in what way this has made anything better, safer, or whatever? By the way, cookies is like the 1996 way of tracking and those opt outs don’t opt you out of tracking.

So, yeah. Super giant win for regulations there - clicking away useless disclaimers en masse to satisfy some EU bureaucrats poor understanding of technology. I’m sure they got a great post out of it. It’s like the pop up ad that you are required to pop up on every website but no one benefits, not even the website owner. At least a real ad the website owner makes some money.

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

#423

Post by fnordpiglet »

h1fra wrote: post #396
fnordpiglet wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please accept all cookies to receive your response.

This is not the take you think it is. The regulation was there to prevent companies from abusing cookies, banner is just a side-effect of companies not willing to respect privacy.

Ok, so how is it effective again?

It’s 2023. You don’t need cookies like you did in 1996 to totally shit on everyone’s privacy, by the way.

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

#424

Post by fnordpiglet »

idiotsecant wrote: post #320
fnordpiglet wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please accept all cookies to receive your response.

I have to admit this is a clever response but it's also an example of a meaningful regulation that corporations are trying to work around . They are annoying on purpose. The law doesn't say to make an annoying popup, only that you can't do user hostile things with cookies.

But surely everyone knows that companies will absolutely comply in the most minimal way possible to any regulation and will actively seek loopholes. Their incentive is profit, not egalitarian utopia. We may wish the universe were different, but it’s not. It’s like wishing the sun won’t expand and consume the planet some day out of respect for life.

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

#425

Post by jorams »

sbuk wrote: post #401
smoldesu wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The law isn't specific to Apple, it also affects WhatsApp. Indeed in the EU that's probably much more important. Personally I don't know anybody who consciously uses iMessage, but the extreme network effects of WhatsApp make it socially impossible to move away from.

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

#426

Post by mdasen »

ribosometronome wrote: post #411
dcow wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>Nobody is asking governments to regulate adding cool new features to the that participants can choose to implement or not for their users as they see fit. Isn't that exactly what you're asking of Apple? Apple already has SMS. You want them to adopt RCS because it has cool new features that are lacking in SMS.

I don't think so. I haven't read the EU documents and the article doesn't say, but you can do this without forcing a company to adopt anything.

Let's say I propose this rule: Apple must publish the iMessage spec and allow other services to send/receive iMessages.

That doesn't force Apple or anyone else to implement any specific feature, beyond allowing others to send/receive messages. WhatsApp or Signal could decide they don't want to implement the iMessage protocol and they're free to do so. WhatsApp might support voice calling, but that doesn't force iMessage to implement voice calling. It's simply saying that third parties can choose to implement the iMessage protocol if they want.

There may be features that will only work within one platform, but that won't give anyone a lock-in advantage since others can implement those features if they're popular. For example, let's say Apple implements CoolNewFeature. They have to publish the spec for CoolNewFeature. Sure, maybe it will take 6 months for Google and WhatsApp to implement CoolNewFeature, but there's nothing preventing them from doing so. Likewise, WhatsApp already has voice calling, but you won't be able to do that with iMessage folks because Apple hasn't implemented that. That seems ok to me. If Apple starts to lose users to WhatsApp, they'll want to implement that interoperability. If it isn't an important feature, it isn't important whether they implement it or not.

To me, it seems like this is about preventing companies from creating walled gardens. It's not about forcing companies to adopt certain standards or features. Apple doesn't need to adopt RCS. If others could send/receive iMessage-protocol messages, it would provide an interoperable system. Some might complain that X protocol is better than Y protocol, but that's the history of everything. Ultimately, those types of things haven't prevented third parties from creating interoperability with less perfect protocols.

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

#427

Post by fnordpiglet »

dangus wrote: post #281
fnordpiglet wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please accept all cookies to receive your response.

Cookie regulation is great. If you block the cookie message elements, the websites have to default to necessary cookies only. Before the regulation, sites would do whatever they wanted if your browser settings weren't set up perfectly.

Or you could have turned off cookies entirely or per site in your browser since 1996, and not depend on the goodwill and compliance of an advertising company. But as has been demonstrated there are a bazillion ways to track you even with cookies blocked that you have no control over nor are covered by this spam pop up inducing bit of transnational bureaucracy.

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

#428

Post by hellojesus »

sangnoir wrote: post #360
hellojesus wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

> The whole point of market economies is to let people vote with their resources. How do negative externalities and imperfect information figure into that? Sure, I'd love to buy Monsanto's awesome defoliant because it's cheaper than BASF's equivalent, but I may also get cancer from it in 5 years, or I may be killing pollinating insects for many miles downwind and downstream. Do you suppose market forces could have go…

Regulation is a useful tool when there is quantifiable harm to an involuntary third party. That is not the case here. People have an infinite amount of electronic communication tools and services from which to choose. These are all voluntary without negative externalities causing harm on individuals outside the conversation (or outside the site when relating to the cookie policy).

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

#429

Post by hellojesus »

kingkawn wrote: post #367
hellojesus wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Many generations of people fought and died to not just let the monstrous assholes with resources decide everything.

The market decides, which is a collection of signals from an amount of players that outweighs any one individual.

It is a much better method of concensus than regulation when no involuntary third party harm exists. It ensures those that have a stake are able to vote, where the size of your vote is proportional to the resources dedicated. Of course not everyone has equal voting power. Why should they when it comes to privately consumed goods and services?

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

#430

Post by xen2xen1 »

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…

IOS 9 or 10 (been a while) turned off SMS fallback when the user upgraded to that version. People kept calling and complaining texting no longer worked, and it was just that they could only text IPhones. That was 100% a dark pattern / monopoly practice with no reason but to ensure market share.
Post reply on HN