551–560 of 645 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I had 25 IPhones all turn off the SMS fallback on the upgrade, and found Apple documentation for such. It was an intentional act, and happened over and over.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Because there's absolutely no downside to telling Apple it can't artificially make its iMessage platform restricted to Apple devices. I would assume one downside is a higher amount of spam. Currently you need to have an Apple device to send an iMessage. So sending spam is an expensive proposition.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Because there's absolutely no downside to telling Apple it can't artificially make its iMessage platform restricted to Apple devices. I am looking forward to Google being able to finally get ahold of my iMessage and hoover it into their surveillance capitalism machine. What a huge benefit to me!
Incorrect. If multiple services interoperate with each other, that does not mean that one service can vacuum up the entire data on that network. As an analogy, Gmail servers cannot touch emails that are stored on Outlook and have never been addressed to a Gmail recipient. And if your position is that Google gets access to traffic flowing on a heterogeneous group of iOS and Android users simply because of RCS, that is…
Isn't RCS at this point a propriety Google protocol, not a standard? There aren't any 'or other' servers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Because there's absolutely no downside to telling Apple it can't artificially make its iMessage platform restricted to Apple devices There are plenty. Like users thinking imessage is shit because of third party clients. Or taking away an app devs right to restrict how and where their app is used. You have no inherent right over how imessage is restricted. I mean, by what right or authority do you even get to even d…
> Like users thinking imessage is shit because of third party clients. If those are the concerns against forcing them to open it, they shall force them now! I mean, lol... > Or taking away an app devs right to restrict how and where their app is used. You have no inherent right over how imessage is restricted. I mean, by what right or authority do you even get to even discuss forcing how a free(!) app is restricted o…
Absolutley not true. The law codifies what is already true with respect to rights but the law also fails to codify rights as with womens rights and involuntary servitude, women and black people didn't suddenly gain rights when laws were passed, they've always had those rights except the law and society failed to recognize that until some point. Law or not there are fundamental and inalienable truths from which rights and obligations can be discerned.
> If EU wants open messaging than can be made into a law. It's that simple.
Yes and if EU wants to do any number unfair or dowright evil things they can, it is that simple. What is your point, did I dispute the simplicity?
I was talking about what consumers what and what service is being offered by Apple and the inherent unfairness towards one group of consumers and favoritism towards non-american electronic makers and developers. They claim to be democratic and support equality and fairness under the law and by that claim I can contend they are in the wrong by their own standards.
Any company and consumer would naturally be treated the same if the EU is not a banana republic and as such this affects everyone.
> Whether the app is free or not is irrelevant.
It is abdolutley vital! Commerce and trade can be regulated and taxed by government authorities but a free app is not commerce. This is regulation of speech and interaction between people. If apple at least had ads in iMessage it could be commerce but it isn't. You are throwing away your rights so u can satisfy some rage against a corporation you don't have to interact with.
> It's enough a consideration that it occupies a big percentage of usage share, so having it close presents a moat against communicating with a big chunk of the population (and also restricts those using iOS just one client)
So a big chunk of the population made a choice but the government should prevent them? Very democratic! You can pass laws forcing government services and entities to not use iMessage but even the US isn't banning tiktok outright or forcing them to be compatible with something they control because... you know, of the people, for the people and all that.
> They very well could, if the right conditions applied...
Yes and that is unfair and concerning because in a free society people have liberties that allow them a choice about who they want to interact with.
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…
Yes. Consider how cars have become incredibly safe over the years. Is this because the government writes good regulations? No. It is because IIHS (and the government, as well) do crash tests and publish the results. Consumers gravitate towards cars that have top safety ratings.
Ironically, the government is why leaded gasoline still exists at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I had 25 IPhones all turn off the SMS fallback on the upgrade, and found Apple documentation for such. It was an intentional act, and happened over and over.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 sp…
But I think I see the miscommunication. I’m assuming that iMessage gains interoperability and thus there are more people who could potentially send spam. But I think you are arguing that SMS would be replaced with the more advanced, interoperable protocol. In that case, I understand your arguments why there would be the same amount or less spam.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>> allow side-loading of apps outside of its App Store Just in time to replace that broken Siri thing with OpenAI based assistants! Previous app submissions were rejected on the basis of being "too close to existing functionality". Maybe they meant dysfunctionality? If the EU needs witnesses of anti-competitive behavior I volunteer.
I'm using an iOS shortcut that lets me make voice requests to OpenAI via Siri. It would be nice to eliminate that step!
Is this what you're wanting from an OpenAI integration?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple seems to keep spam on iMessage fairly well controlled. If anyone can do iMessage on any device, it is logical that these protections may weaken over time.
I'll grant you that - but the proposed legislation isn't requiring Apple to allow iMessage users to receive unsolicited messages from external services.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You misunderstand—it’s not a mystery that scale attracts regulation. The mystery is in why people think that OS engineers should have no freedom to make design choices. Where, even, is the disrespect in being a mere option amongst many? It’s not like Apple is forcing people to buy into their ecosystem. And to your point about comms infrastructure—how does interoperability across messaging apps even look like, and doe…
> The mystery is in why people think that OS engineers should have no freedom to make design choices. Are you employed or vested in this industry? This rhetoric is disingenuous and can be seen as bad faith argumentation. We are, rather explicitly, not talking about mere design decisions. We’re actually discussing the functionality of one of the largest messaging providers in the world with one the largest valuations…
Feel free to provide better data, but Apple's platforms do not even have majority market share in the EU---not enough to backup anything that you said of entering an unspoken social contract when a company reaches a certain undefined scale: https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe/
You should know that the Messages app works with SMS so you have to specify where the difference in quality of service is when an Android device can't receive an iMessage.
And to the point of interoperability--iMessages has APIs for businesses: https://register.apple.com/messages
And they even allow businesses to build a webhook that Apple invokes when businesses receive a message from a user: https://register.apple.com/resources/messages/msp-rest-api/m...
So, again, what exactly is the interoperability issue? Is it that iMessage chats can't be read from Telegram, and that WhatsApp chats can't be sent to a user's Signal account? Or you just can't think of a specific use case because underneath all that snark, you really know nothing about how software is made?