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

621–630 of 645 posts

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

#621

Post by phendrenad2 »

bobbruno wrote: post #522
phendrenad2 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't wait to forever jump from app to app because as soon as one company exceeds 7.5 billion euros, it'll get struck by this new set of laws that makes its entire business model impossible. Of course, that's assuming that the EU doesn't expand this when they notice that happening...

And won’t it be nice when that happens that you will then be able to jump from app to app because they are required by law to interoperate?

I don't think you understand how servers work.

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

#622

Post by phendrenad2 »

jrm4 wrote: post #316
phendrenad2 wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is a citation needed for something that's logically obvious? Why do we need to provide links to an "expert" telling us 3+3=6 when we can just use a calculator?

Are you suggesting that 3+3=6 is as axiomatically "truthful" as "regulation is bad for business?"

No, why do you get that impression from what I actually said?

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

#623

Post by phendrenad2 »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #402
phendrenad2 wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is a citation needed for something that's logically obvious? Why do we need to provide links to an "expert" telling us 3+3=6 when we can just use a calculator?

Because you are getting the basics of economics wrong. You have spent many years of schooling learning to count. Have you studied economics for at least 1 year of formal education? Have you read a book by a real economist? Read 'Economics, the user's guide'. This is not how they think, this is not how they argue. What we have here, is a person who hasnt learnt math arguing that 3 + 3 = 7 and claiming it's logically o…

See you're assuming that you get to say that this is an economics problem. It isn't.

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

#624

Post by phendrenad2 »

jrm4 wrote: post #601
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you are getting the basics of economics wrong. You have spent many years of schooling learning to count. Have you studied economics for at least 1 year of formal education? Have you read a book by a real economist? Read 'Economics, the user's guide'. This is not how they think, this is not how they argue. What we have here, is a person who hasnt learnt math arguing that 3 + 3 = 7 and claiming it's logically o…

Lol, Making me flex this one. I have an undergrad degree in economics from Harvard University. Gotta say it makes me pretty well equipped to poke at how BS it often is. edit: this is me idiotically angrily responding incorrectly to the wrong person. leaving it for the message "don't trust these clowns with fancy degrees, they often are clueless" :)

I really love it when people "flex" their training by converting every question in life into something in their domain and then shouting at everyone who argues with them. Love it.

Economists are often the worst, because almost everything involves money, so you can just pretend that every problem is an economics problem.

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

#625

Post by ClumsyPilot »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #624
jrm4 wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol, Making me flex this one. I have an undergrad degree in economics from Harvard University. Gotta say it makes me pretty well equipped to poke at how BS it often is. edit: this is me idiotically angrily responding incorrectly to the wrong person. leaving it for the message "don't trust these clowns with fancy degrees, they often are clueless" :)

I really love it when people "flex" their training by converting every question in life into something in their domain and then shouting at everyone who argues with them. Love it. Economists are often the worst, because almost everything involves money, so you can just pretend that every problem is an economics problem.

I have nwber thought if that, they can convert engineering problem into and economics problem.

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

#626

Post by mvanbaak »

mdasen wrote: post #426
ribosometronome wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

And why only apple? Why not “force” whatsapp and teams and slack and and and etc to open up their platform as well?

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

#627

Post by dcow »

dcow wrote: post #607
_8j50 wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 b…

I agree with your philosophical understanding of rights and law and government. I disagree that iMessage is free or that because it's free the government does have authority over it. And I disagree that you're applying your principles consistently to your argument or to the situation at hand. First off, arguably it's very much not free because it's only available if you purchase an Apple product. The cost of operatin…

s/does/doesn't

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

#628

Post by clum »

rTX5CMRXIfFG wrote: post #300

I can't quite wrap my head around why people think that it is a good thing for Apple to be regulated into "opening up" (i.e. as opposed to being a "walled garden" platform). If I were an entrepreneur, and say that I wanted to fork a Unix-like OS so that I could make a cross-device OS for consumer hardware that I, too, make---shouldn't I have the right to program my OS to seamlessly integrate only with the apps and th…

They aren't banning a company from seamlessly integrating their apps with the OS. They are essentially banning companies from preventing the seamless integration of 3rd party apps into the OS. Additionally, this law only applies to major companies.

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

#629

Post by kmlx »

iSnow wrote: post #572
kmlx wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "should you have the right to play dirty?" is Apple playing dirty in this scenario? and if it is, then what exactly is stopping regulators from improving SMS thus making Apple's position moot?

Regulators can't improve SMS, they aren't tech companies or telcos.

of course they can. just like they can force tech companies to share their internet based messaging systems.

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

#630

Post by 988747 »

Schroedingersat wrote: post #619
AlchemistCamp wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an extremely uncharitable and snarky answer given the open-ended nature of my question. Thorium reactors don't use either and a fusion reactor wouldn't involve any isotope of uranium. Others may disagree, but I don't think it's a forgone conclusion that all R&D in nuclear energy grinds to a halt. I disagree with the GP's claim that poverty is "the only way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55%."

No scifi nuclear reactor concept is going to be mass deployed by the early 2030s. The only nuclear fuel source that has ever been used in commercial application is U235, with a little bit of Pu239 to boost yield. There is no viable source of U235 for even a fraction of current energy use. OP's claim is garbage (insulation, ending car dependency, and legislating products that aren't landfill help the poor rather than…

> (insulation, ending car dependency, and legislating products that aren't landfill help the poor rather than hindering them)

That's not at all what "Fit for 55" program is about. I agree, those things, over long enough timespan (say, 20 years) could be net positive. Instead, "Fit for 55" means imposing additional "carbon tax" on many industries, and on goods imported from China, based on how much carbon was emitted when producing them. And given the short, 7 years time frame the net result of those policies will be what I originally claimed: pushing everyone to poverty.

EU politicians say it quite openly really, that in order to "save us from the climate catastrophe" we need to sacrifice the standard of living.

Post reply on HN