Live data from Hacker News

EU will require Apple to open up iMessage (2022)

protocol.com

581–590 of 645 posts

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

#581
post #303

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've heard the same when the US forced MS to allow different browsers as default, when the EU mandated a common charging port for mobiles and again when they mandated USB-C. I've yet to see the groundbreaking innovation that I am missing in the smartphone charging area that was suppressed by EU regulation. This again is a talked up hypothetical problem at best. We've had chat for 30y now and while progress has been d…

> I've yet to see the groundbreaking innovation that I am missing in the smartphone charging area that was suppressed by EU regulation.

Of course you don't see it, the innovation was stifled by the regulation! /s

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

#582
I love this idea. I've always been a proponent of the idea that a base protocol for a "thing" should be implemented and supported by major companies, so that it's interoperable across all devices. Then if they want to layer some custom stuff on top and disable it if one device doesn't support it then fine.

For iot it would be amazing; government should mandate that all iot devices have a common communication method/channel (local where possible) so that they're totally interoperable.

Everyone cries about innovation etc etc but think about Apple: they love their custom stuff like this, iMessage, Lightning, AirDrop etc, they always come up with such nice marketable names. But where would they be without supporting _standard_ bluetooth/wifi as well, hmm?

Tbh I think if Apple _could_ get away with it then they'd create their own "AirConnectProMax" wireless communication standard and force everyone to buy new routers that only work with iPhones and MacBooks.

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

#583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just that, it's removing barriers for competition. Which is what good regulations is all about. (and, technically it more than just bubble color, it's also including everyone in group chats)

I think what the (grand)parent would argue is that this isn't removing barriers to competition, it's removing competition itself . That is, iMessage is a feature provided by Apple that makes their products more compelling as compared to their competitors. By requiring Apple to provide this feature to their competitors, they lose one of the key differentiators that make their products "better" than their competitors.…

You're saying Apple's iMessage is a response to competition as a feature to compete.

It is, in actuality, anti-competitive as there is no way to a competitor to participate other than creating a separate platform or App for messaging. Because iMessage comes with and is supported by both all iPhones and Apple it is an uneven playing field; it is impossible to compete & is therefore anti-competitive.

The same thing would happen with TMSC, at the moment Apple buys out a large chunk if not all of their production capacity for a node - this is fine, it's just business. If Apple said to TMSC, "we'll buy out all your capacity for this node but only if you contractually refuse to sell this node to any other company while we're using it" this is anti-competitive behaviour.

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

#584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I think one of the big missing pieces in your parent comment about choice and negative externalities has to do with this network effect and I do not think the argument that it can be overcome locally is a very compelling counter.

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

#585

I love this idea. I've always been a proponent of the idea that a base protocol for a "thing" should be implemented and supported by major companies, so that it's interoperable across all devices. Then if they want to layer some custom stuff on top and disable it if one device doesn't support it then fine. For iot it would be amazing; government should mandate that all iot devices have a common communication method/c…

> For iot it would be amazing; government should mandate that all iot devices have a common communication method/channel (local where possible) so that they're totally interoperable.

Honestly this is suprisingly close to how it works for a fair subset of devices. I.e. I can get basically any zigbee enabled device and expect it to work with my home assistant setup.

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

#586
post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but they are also working on an alternate solution where the bridging happens in the client, which doesn't have this issue.

Nice, where can I learn more?

Matrix.org made a small demo of this at a EU workshop recently. I attended the workshop and wrote a bit about it https://carlschwan.eu/2023/03/02/digital-market-act-workshop...

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

#587
post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Right comes from law 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 t…

> 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 Nope. They got them when those laws were passed. You might think that they always "should have had" those rights, which is valid, but differe…

> But they absoltely didn't have them, and if they attempted to exercize them as if they had them, they'd be ignored, prevented, beaten up, or worse.

Our disagreement is that you think a right is something granted by the law and inability to excecise a right means you don't have it. A right simply means there is a valid justification to allow a person to do not do something. You can have a right and it can unjustly be taken from you. The government or even the fundamental rule of law exists in part to enable justice and justice exists beyond the confines of law and government. If it is just for a person to or not do something and there is a valid and reasonable explanation for that thing then it is justifiable and preventing or coercing a person to contradict that would be unjust therefore it is a right. If the law fails to codify a right then the law is unjust with that respect.

To put it differently, after a law is passed to recognize a right, people can ask for compensation for past injustices even though in the past the injustice was legal. This is because despite legality, a person had rights and due to a failure of law and society that right was not protected and damage was done.

> But you didn't discuss morals, you wrote "by what right or authority". Well, they have the right and the authority, so?

Well that is what I am challenging. The EU or governments in general don't have absolute authority over all things. In the case of EU and democratic governments there is a contract of law between the people and the government defining the authority of the government. I don't know EU law well but in the US the government has the right to regulate commerce which iMessage as a free app is excluded. In a free society, unless the government has explicit authority to regulate something it can't just restrict what you do, that's the whole point of liberty. I was genuinely asking what authority the EU had to regulate the activity of offering a free service to the public that doesn't involve hosting content, only transporting messages. This authority if legit would mean the EU can for example interfere in moderation decisions by sites like HN.

> Sorry, but if you come here to sell something, you better sell it on our terms and under EU laws. If you don't want to do that, you

But nothing is being sold, iMessage is a free app so your point is invalid.

> Also, you don't know what "consumers want" in general. Did you ask consumers if they want to keep Messages closed?

There are people who prefer a closed messaging ecosystem. For people who want a more open system there is Signal, Wire,Briar, Threema, All the Matrix clients,etc... there is no shortage of optiond and most of them are supported on the iPhone. So you and the EU don't care about open apps being available to the EU. You just want to force others to not have a closes messaging system.

You're the bully here.

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

#588
post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

I've heard these rumors, but they don't seem to be true. WhatsApp seems to have moved on a long time ago (to a binary format wrapped in an implementation of the noise protocol framework) and I find zero indication iMessage was ever XMPP.

But that's besides the point. XMPP is great for a uniform ecosystem (in fact, a lot of XEPs are some company standardizing their use-case), but awful if you allow federation and third party clients.

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

#589
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure how it can be easier to use than already supereasy web app, notifications work same via browser and you don't need to install anything, these are really no arguments for desktop app. If you would say desktop app can do voice/video calls which you actually use (I don't, not gonna open laptop with closed lid and external display for that) I can understand using the desktop app, but for someone who doesn't need…

Not quite sure how you can’t understand that not everyone is you. I also prefer the desktop app.

I understand it very well, that's why I asked for explanation why/how is desktop app easier to use than already very easy web app and how are notifications in desktop app different from web app. But thanks for your valuable input which provided me with definite explanation, although I didn't ask for it and I asked user I was conversing with.

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

#590
post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GDPR doesn’t say anything really about cookies, actually. I think you meant ePrivacy. Fact is most popups inform you about cookie use but don’t give you an option to do jack. And what makes you believe they’re ePrivacy compliant? I’ll bet you 90% of those sites, even when well intentioned, pollute you with tracking cookies anyways. Edit: by the way no modern website uses cookies to maintain your shopping cart, and in…

> GDPR doesn’t say anything really about cookies, actually. I think you meant ePrivacy. I meant GDPR. It's the reason why websites have to get consent if they want to track you. I believe you're right that it doesn't mention cookies though, I don't believe it cares about what technology is used for tracking. > Edit: by the way no modern website uses cookies to maintain your shopping cart, and instead of relying on a…

No, you’re wrong. It’s ePrivacy. GDPR set the framework, ePrivaxy has largely superseded.

Actually, I do use privacy mode at all times. The only hindrance is the need to recredential. I have a password manager that auto fills those forms in. It works great, and is better security overall. My cookies database shouldn’t be equivalent to a password file, and I don’t carry around a pile of spammy cookies handing them out to every invasive spy company, hoping an obnoxious pop up mandated by an ineffective regulation will shield me. I use computer science, which always works, rather than political science, which is just a degree for folks who like to drink too much.

Post reply on HN