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

531–540 of 645 posts

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

#531

Post by KiwiJohnno »

danaris wrote: post #414
DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Worst case is 49.9% of people suffer horribly under state enforced "social good". As an iPhone, iPad, and iMessage user, please explain how I will "suffer horribly" from being able to interact with the iMessage service from non-Apple devices.

1) If it is prohibitively difficult (with what that means entirely defined by Apple) for them to fully support all features of iMessage to non-Apple users, and the law requires that other devices have full parity (I don't know if it does; the article is pretty short and detail-light), then Apple may have to remove features from iMessage even on Apple devices. 2) Apple may choose not to try to implement new features t…

Sorry, but this is complete nonsense. All apple have to do is release documentation on the iMessage protocol, and allow other vendors to use this protocol to build apps that can use apple's iMessage service.

Apple obviously won't write these apps, or support those apps or the devices they run on.

Also, If Apple at a later date add features to the iMessage protocol then they document the changes & make this available and are clearly not responsible to implement or support these changes on platforms other than their own.

Apple is not being forced to do anything at all here, except stop blocking other vendors from using iMessage.

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

#532

Post by AshamedCaptain »

_cenw wrote: post #407
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…

> 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 eve…

> If you ever tried to use OMEMO from two different clients at once, you know what I'm talking about.

No, I don't. OMEMO practically's only benefit is fixing that one usecase.

By the way, iMessage is XMPP. Whatsapp is XMPP. Just artificially closed. Long etc.

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

#534

Post by veleek »

cbeach wrote: post #527
bobbruno wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m taking the leap that you’re from the US - if you’re not, then the first comment may not apply to you. > bodies like the EU (led by appointment, not elected politicians) decide on technical standards The president of the United States is not directly elected.They are voted by the electoral college, which introduces all the problems of gerrymandering. EU council are appointed - by politicians from each country, dir…

I’m from the U.K. which is why I care deeply about representative democracy. Our system has stood the test of time. You criticise companies for “refusing to work with others” on messaging. Why should companies be forced into a cartel-like relationship with each other? Surely innovation absolutely depends on companies independently creating new technologies and benefiting from that R&D directly? How can consumers have…

This proposal is not intended to force Apple to work with anybody else. It’s intended to stop them from actively preventing others from working with them.

The example given in a few other comments is allowing anyone to build an iMessage capable app for Android. There’s no requirement that Apple builds this themselves, but it’s currently impossible and/or restricted by Apple. I don’t know enough about the How to comment on that part.

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

#535

Post by rjh29 »

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…

Just like with the deliberate sabotaging of non-certified (read: cheap) USB cables to make them slower, HN posters never fail to defend Apple at every opportunity.

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

#536

Post by hellojesus »

feanaro wrote: post #488
hellojesus wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Network effects can be overcome locally, by talking with your contacts and getting them to move to a new app/communication mechanism. It takes time, but compelling arguments will win in the end.

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

#537

Post by hellojesus »

KiwiJohnno wrote: post #531
danaris wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) If it is prohibitively difficult (with what that means entirely defined by Apple) for them to fully support all features of iMessage to non-Apple users, and the law requires that other devices have full parity (I don't know if it does; the article is pretty short and detail-light), then Apple may have to remove features from iMessage even on Apple devices. 2) Apple may choose not to try to implement new features t…

Sorry, but this is complete nonsense. All apple have to do is release documentation on the iMessage protocol, and allow other vendors to use this protocol to build apps that can use apple's iMessage service. Apple obviously won't write these apps, or support those apps or the devices they run on. Also, If Apple at a later date add features to the iMessage protocol then they document the changes & make this available…

> Apple is not being forced to do anything at all here, except stop blocking other vendors from using iMessage.

> All apple have to do is release documentation on the iMessage protocol, and allow other vendors to use this protocol to build apps that can use apple's iMessage service.

Your very argument is contradictory. The law does require Apple to do something. It requires them to reveal trade secrets and IP.

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

#538

Post by speedylight »

jeppester wrote: post #493

It's the same every time. When Apple gets called out for monopolistic anti-consumer behaviour, an army shows up to defend Apple with a bunch of FUD. No, it won't hurt you or your grandma that you can choose app store, choose browser engine, choose payment provider, that you can charge with usb c, etc., and in this case that non-apple users won't be mocked with different colored bubbles and other limitations. Every co…

It does hurt as far as payment for me. Subscriptions with Apple Pay is where it’s at, one place to manage all subscriptions way outside the control of developers is peak use ability imo. I can personally get behind a different browser engine and maybe App Store but I hope they leave Apple Pay alone.

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

#539

Post by hellojesus »

dragonwriter wrote: post #444
hellojesus wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I clicked the first link, which argues that free markets are bad because central banking has failed. Central banking does not exist in a free market. Of course it will fail. Free markets are designed precisely to avoid the inevitable failure of a central authority.

> I clicked the first link, which argues that free markets are bad because central banking has failed. You may have clicked on it, but I don’t see how you got that message from it. It argues that free markets are good , and that problems attributed to “market failure” are instead failures of other things (like central banking) that are not features of free markets. (All of the other pieces argue variations on the sam…

Thanks. I skimmed through it and saw the core ideas. I thought your original comment was sarcasm. My bad.

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

#540

Post by grishka »

jeroenhd wrote: post #449
grishka wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 touchs…

KDE has a built in chat client that seems to do the job most of the time. What's severely lacking there is client support. Because of it libraries for all kinds of services exist already. KDE Telepathy sounds pretty close to what you're describing (native (Linux) controls, multi window, no touch screen design, plenty of different protocols). With the KDE project slowly seeming to move towards Matrix rather than XMPP…

I looked at the screenshots of KDE Telepathy and I'm not convinced. This kind of multi-protocol IM client exists for every major desktop OS — this and Pidgin for Linux, Adium for macOS, Miranda for Windows, etc. The problem with all these apps is that they're not modern. They do great for text messages, but that's it. Anything beyond text is an afterthought if implemented at all. What I mean by "modern" is first-class support for all the IM features people now take for granted: media attachments, server-side history with search, replies, mentions, reactions, forwarding, bot features, channels, etc. None of these existing apps even try to do any of this. This is what I want to fix with my future project.
Post reply on HN