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

481–490 of 645 posts

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

#481

Post by dcow »

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…

Essentially, think of all the amazing grassroots OSRS clients we'd have that wouldn't have been C&D'd over the years if it was illegal to punish users for writing interoperable software...

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

#482

Post by odiroot »

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/

Libpurple powered the messaging on Nokia N900. It was really a great experience, seamlessly using the same app for SMS, FBM, Skype, Google Chat and few others.

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

#483

Post by smoldesu »

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.

Why wouldn't it improve? Currently none of these services offer interop; in the future they might. That's a static upgrade to me, and I'd imagine most other people too.

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

#484

Post by Krasnol »

rodgerd wrote: post #458
sandgiant wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious about this too. At least now I have fairly decent confidence that when I send an iMessage to someone, Apple protects their identity to whatever standard they have. Whatever trust I put in Apple, at least it's a single point of failure. What happens if interoperability is enforced and messages have to be end-to-end encrypted? Wouldn't that mean that any side-loaded Android app would have to be able to get…

> On iOS I guess you could still keep the key private through Apple's SDK, but what about other platforms? It's such a huge win for Facebook and Google - I'm not worried about "sideloaders", it lets them crack open the privacy of iMessage by simply having a view on conversations they can't see under the guise of interoperability. The EU are just rolling a surveillance capitalist's wet dream with rulings like these.

Do you have any actual facts so this doesn't look like just another uninformed conspiracy theory in this thread?

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

#485

Post by dcow »

MarkSweep wrote: post #476
dcow wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never understood the origins of this argument. I'm pretty sure it's rooted in deep misunderstanding. If I want to spam you I buy a bunch of numbers on Plivo and start sending your number messages with SMS, the existing standard. They show up in iMessage on your phone. The only difference is they're green instead of blue. So, how do I need an iPhone to send you spam? iMessage doesn't do anything related to spam o…

Please note I’m responding to the claim that there is “absolutely no downside” to making Apple devices more interoperable. I’m not saying whether or not that is a good enough reason not to. I know the difference between SMS and iMessage. Currently I get plenty of SMS spam. I get pretty much zero iMessage spam. I’m pretty sure that I would get more spam if iMessage was made interoperable, even if device attestation wa…

> Please note I’m responding to the claim that there is “absolutely no downside” to making Apple devices more interoperable. I’m not saying whether or not that is a good enough reason not to.

Right, I'm just genuinely confused. How would you meaningfully distinguish between the spam? Why would there be more of it? Wouldn't it just come in blue instead of green? I'm not sure I understand how adding a 2nd avenue for spammers opens new doors when the existing avenue is totally sufficient. Perhaps if you could send messages from an email only account is what you're saying? Personally I would hope there'd be ways to control unsolicited messages in the messaging apps and report spam to the carriers. And honestly I was thinking that as an sms replacement, messages from email-only accounts would be something different carriers would want to gate/control onto the network as they see fit. Or more ideally the protocol itself could require messages to be signed with device attestation keys. Why iMessage doesn't give me better spam management options for existing SMS is the real question.

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

#486

Post by krzyk »

jaywalk wrote: post #474
krzyk wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spam operations have so much money that buying a bunch of iPhones is not an issue, even if they didn't, they could buy older, used iPhones for pennies.

Well then why haven't they? I get zero iMessage spam.

I don't know, I don't get any SMS spam either.

Maybe we are not that interesting?

But I do get a spam call from time to time.

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

#487

Post by f_devd »

hedora wrote: post #363
f_devd wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What security guarantees do Apple currently provide? I can't imagine much more than E2EE & maybe encrypted-at-rest (which is not a protocol-level feature anyway).

Well, the security coprocessor on every iPhone and Mac runs a formally verified operating system that manages the at-rest encrypted messages. Also, all software running on the phone is vetted before being allowed to hit consumer devices, which adds an extra level of security between malicious developers and kernel APIs. There's no way Android will support that stuff across its entire ecosystem, so I guess it means th…

Encrypted at rest does not actually do anything against interoperability of protocols (as I put in my comment), a secure element/coprocessor is nice but still does nothing against compatibility. Even if the entire protocol is somehow in the coprocessor (ala BPF/SGX) there is nothing preventing the counterparty from running it on a regular CPU.

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

#488

Post by feanaro »

hellojesus wrote: post #428
sangnoir wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

> People have an infinite amount of electronic communication tools and services from which to choose.

Due to network effects of communication tools, this is not really true.

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

#489

Post by freedomben »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #380
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".

> Best case you get a almost as good outcome Ah, so you have never heard of market failure, market manipulation, cartels, negative externalities, qash trading, self dealing, insider trading, wage supression agreements, and dozens of others? You do realise that without government to keep fraud and manipulation in check 'free market' collapses into anarchy in one week?

> You do realise that without government to keep fraud and manipulation in check 'free market' collapses into anarchy in one week?

Can you provide an example of this? Or maybe point out some theory/philosophy that builds to this? I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm legitimately curious what is out there as this doesn't seem like a self-evident claim.

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

#490

Post by duskwuff »

xen2xen1 wrote: post #430
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…

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.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem accurate. I've been using iOS since ~2015 and I don't recall ever having lost the ability to send or receive SMS messages.
Post reply on HN